ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

BUSINESS, ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM

The Minister of State was asked—

Post Office

Alan Reid: What plans he has for the future viability of the Post Office network.

Patrick McFadden: The Government will continue to support the post office network financially with a subsidy worth £150 million per year until 2011 and, building on the recent allocation of the contract for the Post Office card account, we will continue to work with Post Office Ltd to support new areas of work and new business opportunities for the post office network.

Alan Reid: I thank the Minister for that answer, but with the banking system in great difficulties and discredited in the eyes of the public, the Post bank proposals give the Government an ideal opportunity to provide local and trusted access to the banking system. The banks have long been closing branches in rural communities, but the Post Office's extensive network has the potential to put local banking back at the heart of our communities and give our post offices a secure future. Will the Government commit to setting up a Post bank?

Patrick McFadden: I agree that banking and financial services are an important part of the Post Office's work, and it is already the leading supplier of foreign exchange services to the public. It also provides savings products and insurances, and millions of bank accounts held with high street banks are also available through post offices. It makes sense for Post Office Ltd to build on those services, and I know that both the company and sub-postmasters are very keen to expand their services in the banking and financial services area.

Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister agree that Post Office and Royal Mail are inevitably linked? Can he comment on the suggestion that the Network Rail system should be used to get over the problem of selling off certain parts of Royal Mail? Will he ensure that there are other ways of developing that idea and that they are discussed later on, including at the national executive committee meeting in a fortnight's time?

Patrick McFadden: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that Post Office Ltd and Royal Mail are linked. There is an inter-business agreement between the two and that will continue under the Government's plans in the Postal Services Bill. As to the issue he raises about Network Rail, the Government do not legislate with a closed mind, as I have said several times this week. However, some of the plans put to us do not meet the test of transforming Royal Mail, and we need a future for that organisation that does not just attract new capital, but provides a convincing plan for transformation. That is what we have set out in the Postal Services Bill.

Jonathan Djanogly: Having slashed the post office network by 2,500 branches, the Minister and Lord Mandelson now say soothingly that they have no intention of supporting further closures. But why should we believe the Government on this, any more than in relation to any of their other phoney economic forecasts?

Patrick McFadden: Unlike the Conservatives, we have supported the post office network financially. As I said, we give a subsidy of £150 million a year to the Post Office that helps to sustain many thousands of branches that might otherwise be under threat. With the Conservatives' new-found enthusiasm for cutting public expenditure, I wonder whether they could guarantee a subsidy of that size. They certainly have not said so, and people would have good reason to doubt whether that would be the case.

Kerry McCarthy: As chair of the all-party group on credit unions, I know that the credit union movement is very keen to be involved in a Post bank if such proposals are on the table. However, various separate discussions seem to be taking place—the Communication Workers Union has a plan, as does the National Federation of SubPostmasters. Can the Minister assure me that he will do what he can to bring together all interested parties so that we do not have several different proposals?

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend makes a good point. As she will remember, we have met to talk about credit unions offering services through post offices. Following that meeting, I spoke to the managing director of Post Office Ltd and I understand that discussions are taking place between the company and the Association of British Credit Unions.

John Thurso: The legislation passing through the other place offers a once in a generation opportunity to give the Post Office a viable future, quite apart from the proposals for Royal Mail. May I again urge the Minister to seize the opportunity when the legislation comes to this House to secure the future of the Post Office by giving it its own board and proper resources so that it can develop a strategy on a Post bank, instead of leaving it as the poor relation of Royal Mail, withering on inadequate subsidies?

Patrick McFadden: Given the hon. Gentleman's question, I think that he will agree that there is much in the Bill that the Post Office can be enthusiastic about. It will have its own board, which will give it an increased standing. With the Post Office card account contract awarded by the Government just a few months ago, as well as a new contract between the Department for Transport and Post Office Ltd on the renewal of driving licences, there is reason to look forward to greater stability in the network. There is a great deal for the Post Office in the Government's plans to reform postal services.

Lindsay Hoyle: As a member of the Select Committee on Business and Enterprise, which has been challenged to come forward with a report on the future of the Post Office, I know that we all want it to have a sustainable and viable future that ensures that the network remains in its entirety. We should establish the community bank by using Northern Rock, which has branches throughout the country, in rural and urban areas. That community bank would then pose a real challenge to the high street banks. As he is well aware, the Post Office does not have a banking licence and to set up a bank would cost millions, but the Government already own a bank that my right hon. Friend could use, so will he consider that as a good vehicle for the way forward?

Patrick McFadden: I am happy to work with the Select Committee on its inquiry into the future of the post office network, and I have already met the Committee to discuss that. Of course we want to see the Post Office build on its provision of banking services, but in any discussion of the expansion of those services we must remember the existing agreements with the Bank of Ireland. However it is done, I am sure that banking services will be a major consideration for the future of the post office network.

Robert Smith: Will the Minister take forward the Post bank proposal with more urgency? It is not just about giving the Post Office a new breath of life, but about restoring confidence for individual small savers in a basic simple banking system, where they put in deposits and small loans are made out. The Post bank could restore confidence after the banking crisis.

Patrick McFadden: I assure the House that there is no lack of urgency or energy on the part of the Government about working with the Post Office on securing its future. Only yesterday, I was extolling the Post Office's potential to provide services for the new identity cards, but, sadly, if the Liberal Democrats were in power that opportunity would not be available to Post Office Ltd.

WTO Negotiations (Doha Round)

Tony Baldry: What steps the Government have taken to seek a successful outcome to the Doha round of World Trade Organisation negotiations.

Gareth Thomas: At the London Summit we secured renewed commitment from G20 leaders to concluding the round. Indeed, business groups from around the world, and in particular developing country Ministers continue to welcome the Government's strong support for a successful conclusion to the round as early as is possible.

Tony Baldry: No, the Minister did not secure that commitment. The G20 communiqué says that the G20 is
	"committed to building on the progress already made".
	That language is even more flaccid than that used by the G20 in its communiqué on the Washington G20 meeting last November. We are moving backwards. Given that everyone reckons that if we could have a successful conclusion to the Doha development round it would be worth about $150 billion to the global economy each year, what are the UK Government doing to help kick-start the Doha development round and to reach a conclusion rather than going backwards?

Gareth Thomas: I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman, not least because of his stint as Chair of the Select Committee on International Development, but with all due respect to him I think that his analysis of the situation is wrong. There has been a commitment to build on the progress that we made in July last year, when Pascal Lamy said that we were some 75 per cent. of the way towards a deal. We have begun the process of engaging with the Obama Administration. Indeed, the G20 summit was the first opportunity to do that. We are obviously waiting to see the outcome of the Indian elections, because India is also a key partner in making progress towards securing agreement on the rest of the round. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to see progress in that round. There are huge potential benefits if we can reach agreement, and that is why the Government remain a strong supporter of completing the round and making progress as soon as we can.

Patricia Hewitt: I welcome my hon. Friend's reference to the Indian elections. Will he ensure that as soon as the elections are concluded and a new Indian Government are in place, the British Government will do everything possible to work with that Government, both to remove the remaining obstacles to the Doha round and to ensure a successful agreement on the proposed India-European Union trade agreement?

Gareth Thomas: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to re-emphasise India's importance to the Doha round. From her own contacts with this issue in the past, she will be aware of the huge importance that British business attaches to engaging successfully with India through the EU-India free trade agreement. We will, of course, have further discussions with the Indian Government once the elections have been concluded. Indeed, we look forward to a series of discussions with other member states, through international gatherings such as the forthcoming round of G8 meetings.

Peter Luff: It is, of course, a cause of great disappointment that the Doha round is making such slow progress, but we need to recognise that simply joining the WTO and following its rules can have a dramatic impact on individual countries. I am thinking in particular of Saudi Arabia, from where my Committee has just returned. That impact is not always lost on British business, which is doing very well in Saudi Arabia, but the challenge is to find the resources in UK Trade and Investment to support that effort. We are concerned about that, so will the Minister look at UKTI's resources in countries such as Saudi Arabia, which are opening their markets rapidly through WTO membership?

Gareth Thomas: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for encouraging countries that are not WTO members to join the organisation, and I also welcome his strong support for UKTI's work. I hope that the Opposition Front-Bench team continues to listen to him: he may not have noticed it, but further support for UKTI was announced in the Budget, and he might want to encourage his party to endorse that part of the Budget as well.

Andy Reed: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that progress has been tremendously slow, but that is understandable given that we are trying to get several largely competing vested interests to work in the same direction. He mentioned the Obama Administration, but can he tell us what progress is being made on cotton, for example? The previous US Administration resisted making concessions on that, so might not a change in Administration make a significant difference for some of the poorest countries in the world?

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend is right to underline the importance of securing movement from the US on cotton subsidies. Cotton represents a huge potential opportunity for Mali, Burkina Fasso and some of the other poorest developing countries in the world to sell goods into markets in the rich developed countries such as the US and the EU. We need the Obama Administration to move on the issue, and we therefore welcome President Obama's support for the strong language agreed in the text of the G20 communiqué. We also welcome the further positive noises that his trade representative, Ron Kirk, has been making in recent days.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The question from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) got to the heart of the matter. A successful conclusion of the Doha round of WTO talks would increase world trade by $150 billion, and the new US trade representative, Ron Kirk, has made the positive comment that we should
	"embrace this once-in-a-generation opportunity to forge a strong framework for the future of global trade."
	Even so, creeping protectionism is returning to Europe in respect of cars, milk subsidies, steel wire and candles. What positive action can the British Government take to support our American friends and the Obama Administration, and what can they do to take a lead in Europe against that creeping protectionism?

Gareth Thomas: The Government are concerned about the possibility of the creeping protectionism that the hon. Gentleman described, which is one reason why we sought to use the G20 summit to secure agreement that the WTO would monitor what is happening in respect of possible protectionist measures. It will publish quarterly reports on the matter, and so hold a spotlight on what countries are doing.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the whole House will welcome the fact that there has not been a wholesale uptake of new protectionist measures. Indeed, there has been a reduction in some of those measures, most notably in Indonesia and Argentina recently. Most significantly of all, however, the Obama Administration drew back from endorsing a very crude "Buy America" approach to Government procurement, and we warmly welcome that.
	Finally, it is a little difficult to take lectures from the Opposition about working with colleagues in Europe, when they seem to have so few friends there—something that I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who leads for the Opposition on these matters, will acknowledge.

Business Link

David Kidney: What assessment he has made of the performance of Business Link in providing support to businesses in the last 12 months.

Ian Pearson: Business Link is in the front line, providing real help to business. In the past 12 months, nearly 1 million businesses have used the service, with more than 73,000 receiving intensive support. The latest customer survey shows a 90 per cent. satisfaction level with the service.

David Kidney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Business Link has certainly been active, and I have received more positive comments than negative comments about the range and quality of its services. However, one thing that concerns some people is the remoteness of the service since the model changed from a local presence to call centre. Could we not overcome that problem by introducing closer working partnerships between Business Link and business representatives, such as chambers of commerce, the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses, and delivering more services through such representative bodies?

Ian Pearson: As my hon. Friend is aware, Business Link is delivered through several different partners, and in the different regions some close working relationships already exist between Business Link and chambers of commerce, in particular. It is important that Business Link is promoted through those chambers. He makes a valid point, however, and the Government are keen to ensure that Business Link gets people out on the ground, visiting companies, attending meetings and promoting its services. That is part of the business strategy of every Business Link service in every region.

Anne McIntosh: I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), because the regionalisation programme with which the Government persist makes bodies such as Business Link even more remote. We had a perfectly good local model in north Yorkshire, but now it has gone to west Yorkshire. MPs have a role to play, but what is the Minister and his Department doing to promote access to Business Link by small and medium-sized companies at a time of credit crisis?

Ian Pearson: Whenever there is change, there will inevitably be some noise, but, overall, the changes to the Business Link network have led to greater operational efficiencies and the delivery of a better service to business customers. As I said, the latest customer survey shows a 90 per cent. satisfaction rate, and that is something to be welcomed. It is vital, however, that Business Link continues to engage with the small and medium-sized enterprises to which the hon. Lady refers. It does so through a variety of mechanisms, and I find that, these days, SMEs are well aware of Business Link. Its brand recognition is high and SMEs understand how they can access its services via the Business Link website. Again, however, it is a part of every Business Link service to adopt marketing strategies that promote its services to small and medium-sized companies, and to use intermediaries, such as chambers of commerce.

Trade Credit Insurance Scheme

Lindsay Roy: What eligibility criteria will apply to assistance under his Department's trade credit insurance scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Ian Pearson: In the Budget, the Chancellor announced a £5 billion trade credit insurance scheme to support businesses that have suffered reductions in their level of cover. From 1 May until 31 December this year, businesses of all sizes and in all sectors will be able to purchase six months of "top-up" insurance from the Government if credit limits on their customers are reduced by their insurance provider. The level of cover held under a whole turnover trade credit insurance policy must be in place for at least 30 days before it is reduced, but that criterion has been backdated to 1 April.
	To be eligible, the trade concerned needs to take place within the UK, with payment terms of no more than 120 days. Further details of the scheme are on the Business Link website.

Lindsay Roy: I congratulate the Minister on taking that initiative, which has been warmly appreciated by several businesses in my constituency. However, will my hon. Friend clarify whether the scheme applies only to the UK? If so, are there plans to extend it to overseas suppliers and customers?

Ian Pearson: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the scheme applies only to the United Kingdom, but he will be aware that we are considering a proposal for confirming letters of credit, and we intend the Export Credits Guarantee Department to operate it. The ECGD will consult on the proposal shortly. The plight of UK exporters must be addressed, and that is why we are considering that proposal along with other measures that might be implemented to help our exporters. However, I should point out that we have a very competitive exchange rate, some very efficient UK businesses and some opportunities to take advantage of.

Elfyn Llwyd: Back in mid-November, I questioned the Prime Minister about the need for this kind of scheme. He gave me a typically long, convoluted and laborious answer, implying that the issue was already being addressed. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that the scheme came in only last Friday; five and a half months have been lost.

Ian Pearson: I would like to think that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the trade credit insurance scheme, which has been welcomed by a wide variety of business organisations. It will now provide support that, as I said, will be backdated to 1 April. We believe that it will help companies on the margin whose cover has been reduced. It will help businesses, and I would like to think that the hon. Gentleman's party will welcome that part of the Budget.

Adrian Bailey: I welcome and acknowledge the help that the scheme is giving UK businesses. However, I want to reinforce the message that has come from other Members about the difficulties faced by exporters. Although I welcome the Government's consultation, may I urge the Minister to carry it out quickly and act as soon as possible, before some companies go to the wall?

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend comes from the same neck of the woods as I do, and I am very aware of businesses in the black country that are exporting and have found life difficult because of tightening credit conditions. I am keen that we should move on with the proposal on confirmation of letters of credit—consult on it and get it implemented as quickly as possible. The business community has asked for the scheme and it will be of benefit. Obviously, however, there will be a consultation and we want to hear the responses to it.

Julie Kirkbride: As a fellow west midlands MP, the Minister will be only too well aware of the importance of Jaguar Land Rover to the west midlands economy. The company employs more than 14,000 people directly and many more indirectly, and it anchors the automotive engineering business in the region. The Minister must therefore understand the huge concern about yesterday's BBC reports that talks between the Government and Tata, the owner of Jaguar Land Rover, are breaking down. I would be grateful for any update from the Minister that I might relay to my constituents who work at the company.

Ian Pearson: As the hon. Lady will be aware, Tata has denied those reports. Discussions are ongoing. The Government regard JLR as a viable company with good long-term prospects. We want to see the company through difficult trading times and to provide it and its employees with stability. That is why we have been having confidential discussions with JLR and its parent company about both the short-term and long-term financing in its business plans. Those negotiations are ongoing.
	It is important that those discussions should be handled professionally and face to face, rather than through the media; handling them through the media is not helpful to the company. We have not yet had any response to the proposal that we put to JLR last Friday, but obviously we would welcome one and we continue to have discussions with the company.

David Drew: One of the problems is how few trade credit insurance firms there are. We all have examples of how difficult it is for a company that has lost its trade credit insurance to find another trade credit insurance firm to take it on. Given all the current problems, will the Minister give me an assurance that there will be an investigation into the structure of the industry to make sure that there is enough variety of providers and that businesses can get insurance so that they can trade properly?

Ian Pearson: As my hon. Friend is aware, the trade credit insurance market is dominated by three firms—Euler Hermes, Coface and Atradius. The ECGD used to provide short-term credit insurance, but it has not done so for a number of years since it privatised that operation out to Atradius. He is right to point out that many companies rely on trade credit insurance. Our figures suggest that about 14,000 out of 250,000 companies have trade credit insurance, so it is a significant market, and we need to keep under review whether it is functioning efficiently. We have to consider whether there is more that we can be doing sensibly, as a Government, to help our businesses through these difficult times. What we have here is a Government who are actively looking at providing support—real help to business now rather than a party that wants to do nothing.

Small Business (Payments)

Andrew Selous: What steps he is taking to ensure that small businesses are paid promptly.

Ian Pearson: The Government are committed to paying invoices within 10 days. We have supported the Institute of Credit Management's prompt payment code in partnership with all the leading business representative organisations, and we have launched a series of managing cash flow guides to help small businesses.

Andrew Selous: People running small businesses in my constituency tell me that it is not uncommon for larger companies to decide to pay invoices 60 days after they have processed them. Would the Government be prepared to name and shame companies, or indeed public bodies, that take so long? I am sure that he is well aware that cash flow is vital to small businesses, and failure to act in this area could lead them to fail, thus cruelly adding to the level of unemployment.

Ian Pearson: As a Government, we closely monitor the situation, and we are aware of examples where companies are extending payment terms. Clearly, we want to see prompt payment, and we have been leading the way. It is important that we continue to discuss with the industry what measures might be most effective. The hon. Gentleman suggests one proposal. When we talk to industry, people emphasise the importance of maintaining effective working relationships between customers and suppliers, and that needs to be taken into consideration. He will be aware of our late payment legislation, which is available to be used by small companies if they find that large companies are extending their payment terms or not paying on time.

Ken Purchase: The Minister will recall that our Government introduced a scheme whereby small firms could charge interest on late invoices. It has not worked, nor did many people think it would. Does he agree that the most important part of the whole issue is that companies need to know how long it will be before their invoice is paid? Could we not have a scheme whereby the average number of days that companies, particularly large ones, take to pay was writ large and audited in any contract that was entered into so that people could plan properly and knew exactly how long the company they were dealing with took to pay?

Ian Pearson: We have engaged an external research company to monitor payment performance, and the latest data suggest that the average payment beyond agreed terms has extended by three days, or 15 per cent., in the past year. That does not help, because companies need their money. By March 2009, nine out of 10 invoices were being paid within 10 days by central Government Departments. We are making progress as a Government, and we want to encourage more companies to sign up to the prompt payment code. However, my hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion, and I will go away and reflect on it.

Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the Minister agrees that smaller businesses are the heartbeat of this nation. They can respond quickly and, very often, inexpensively. Sadly, however, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) implied, large business still uses small business as a means of cash flow. Is there no way in which smaller businesses could, because of legislation passed by this House, automatically place an additional cost on businesses that delay paying beyond 30 days? A final small point—how often does the Minister monitor the payment records of national Government and local government, who are both very big purchasers of services?

Ian Pearson: We closely monitor Government payment, which is why I was able to say that in March central Government Departments were paying nine out of 10 invoices within 10 days. There are figures broken down by Department.
	On the hon. Gentleman's wider point, late payment legislation is in place. Often, companies do not use it, because they are concerned that they will damage their working relationship with their customer. Big companies do not always exploit smaller companies in their supply chain. I can point to a number of examples of big companies paying earlier than they normally would because of concerns about the viability of their supply chain. One key thing to recognise is that in many industrial sectors there is an integrated supply chain, and it is in everybody's interests to have payment certainty. Of course there are some examples of that not happening, and they have been highlighted to a number of hon. Members. We need to consider what more we can do to encourage that payment certainty.

Danny Alexander: When I met representatives of the Federation of Small Businesses in Grantown-on-Spey on Sunday, they said that this is the biggest problem that they face, and that some companies are taking 90 days to pay their bills. Will the Minister ensure not only that Government Departments pay their bills on time but that any big company that has a relationship with central Government is forced to pay its bills quickly to smaller firms or lose its central Government contract?

Ian Pearson: The Government are doing all they can to ensure that invoices are paid on time by central Government Departments, and similarly we have been encouraging local government to pay promptly, because it is a big purchaser. We have supported the prompt payment code, and we want more companies to sign up to it. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, there are some examples of companies stringing out payments to their creditors. That is not necessarily unusual, and it prompted the late payment legislation that was introduced a number of years ago. It is important to highlight these problems where they occur. I am not sure that further Government legislation would be of practical assistance, but we need to ensure that more companies recognise their responsibilities to their suppliers and pay them on time, helping them to remain viable.

Dari Taylor: In October 2008, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform made the statement that the Government would build on their commitment to pay firms within 10 working days. The Civil Engineering Contractors Association has surveyed local authorities, and it appears that many, if not the majority, are most certainly not paying within 10 days. What discussions has the Minister had with local authorities? If he has had none, will he take on that responsibility? It is essential for small companies that local authorities pay within 10 days—they have the money.

Ian Pearson: My understanding is that the Department for Communities and Local Government leads on ensuring that more local authorities pay on time within 10 days. I believe that this time last year one in 20 local authorities were paying within 10 days, and that now about a third are doing so. There is clearly room for improvement, and we have wanted to encourage local government to ensure that it pays as promptly as it can to support local and regional companies that supply goods and services to it.

Mark Prisk: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), prompt payment is crucial for small firms, whether from national or local government. According to independent assessors, Conservative councils have the best record on paying promptly. Why does the Minister think Labour and other councils are failing to meet that standard? Is it intentional or just incompetence?

Ian Pearson: I do not agree that there is any party political difference about prompt payment. As a Government, we are walking the walk and making stringent efforts to ensure that we pay invoices on time. We want that to occur in the wider public sector, in not only local government, but the NHS and other areas. We will continue to do all that we can to ensure that those who contract with the Government get their payments on time, within 10 days.

Topical Questions

Andrew Turner: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Patrick McFadden: Our Department is focused totally on working with businesses, and, of course, their employees, through the difficult economic times, as well as—importantly—working with businesses and their employees to prepare for the upturn, when it comes.

Andrew Turner: Recently, Halifax Bank of Scotland prevented a friendly takeover bid for Network Data Ltd, which could have safeguarded jobs at 500 mortgage brokers throughout the UK, including at KISS Financial Services on the Isle of Wight. The taxpayer largely owns HBOS and saving jobs should be a priority. Why did not the bank facilitate the friendly takeover rather than hoarding taxpayers' money and putting jobs at risk?

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman raises a specific case, which I am happy to consider and then write to him. However, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister and other Ministers have made clear, we expect players in the financial services community, who have received Government help, to continue to operate commercially, as they have done normally in the private sector. We do not, therefore, interfere in individual commercial decisions. The Government are taking a series of measures to help workers, support businesses and protect home owners. Indeed, one of the great differences between our party and the hon. Gentleman's is that we offer "Real help now", while the Conservative party continues to seek to do nothing—indeed, it tries to worsen matters by advocating cuts in public spending.

Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench know that, when the Sunday trading laws were passed, it was decided to protect Easter Sunday, when stores would not open. Part of the reason for that was to protect staff working in those stores so that, at least on that day and Christmas day, they would not be forced to work. B&Q closes its stores on Easter Sunday, but insists on staff working, thus breaking not the letter, but the spirit of the law. Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter?

Patrick McFadden: We have no plans to change the Sunday trading laws, but I am happy to discuss my hon. Friend's point about stores being open and people working. However, we do not plan to change the Sunday trading laws.

Kenneth Clarke: The Minister will have noticed that the Leader of the Opposition and I reconfirmed our support for the principle of part-privatisation of Royal Mail and committed ourselves to continuing the supportive and constructive role that our colleagues in the House of Lords played when they considered the Postal Services Bill. Has he noticed that he has not had the same ringing support from the Prime Minister? Does he believe that it is currently impossible to get any certain position from Downing street? Does that trouble him?

Patrick McFadden: The Prime Minister fully supports and is committed to our plans for Royal Mail. That is clear. We will take the plans forward and not implement the policy, which I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman espoused on the radio the other day, to privatise Royal Mail. We will keep Royal Mail in the public sector, but transform it for the future.

Kenneth Clarke: When the Bill arrives, we will have a chance to examine the curious use of the English language, which enables the Minister to keep protesting that he is retaining Royal Mail in public ownership when, as we know, we are considering part-privatisation. I shall repeat my question. The Minister says that the Prime Minister still supports the policy, yet we read daily in briefings that Downing street is considering whether to go on with the Bill and press the policy. Can the Minister get the Prime Minister to say publicly what, as he has just said, he innocently believes to be the Prime Minister's settled position?

Patrick McFadden: The Prime Minister has said publicly on a number of occasions that he fully backs the policy that we have espoused. It is fair to point out that No. 10 was very quick to say that it was not considering some of the ideas that were floating about in the papers earlier this week.

Andrew Miller: Every Member who supports manufacturing industry will support the statements on the vehicle industry that the Prime Minister made yesterday in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins), which can be found in column 169. The publication of the details of the scrappage scheme is imminent, and other changes are being introduced, so will the Minister assure the House that the Government will keep on the pressure and maximise the support for these successful industries, which deserve the support of the whole House?

Ian Pearson: I welcome what my hon. Friend says. The scrappage scheme will be operational on 18 May. It will provide further support on the demand side to encourage people to buy new automobiles—the industry has welcomed that—and will build on the £2.3 billion automotive assistance package that we announced some months ago. The car industry in the UK is of strategic importance to the UK economy, and he will know the importance of the facility at Ellesmere Port, in his constituency, to the region too. We want to do all that we sensibly can to ensure that discussions continue about the future of General Motors Europe, and we are working closely with the German Administration on these issues. We want to continue to ensure that we deliver for the automotive industry the packages of measures that we have announced.

Andrew Selous: Many of my constituents work at the IBC van factory in Luton, which makes the outstandingly successful Vivaro van, or at Vauxhall's headquarters in Luton. They are understandably concerned for the future of their jobs, given the merger talks that are being discussed. Given the Government's support for the LDV factory earlier in the week, what assurances can the Minister give that the Government will do everything in their power to ensure the continuation of the plant and the headquarters?

Ian Pearson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will do everything we can to support the restructuring of GM Europe as a viable business for the future. Through the Luton van plant, through the facility at Ellesmere Port and through the Millbrook testing ground, GM is important to the UK economy. I must point out that Vauxhall is important to Opel and GM Europe too, as it accounts for about 25 per cent. of the company's sales. There is no doubt in my mind that we need to continue the discussions that we are having with GM at a variety of levels and with the German Government, who have been approached for funding too. I assure him that those discussions are continuing.

Jim Devine: It will soon be three years since the collapse of Farepak, the Christmas hamper company, yet its directors still have not been brought to account. They were due to be in the civil courts earlier this year, but that did not happen. In recognition of how Farepak's collapse destroyed the Christmases of tens of thousands of decent, hard-working families throughout the United Kingdom, will the Minister facilitate a meeting between the liquidators and MPs from all parts of the House who have concerns about this collapse?

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend will know from previous conversations that he and I have had, as well as from exchanges on the Floor of the House, that the Government recognise the considerable anger of many of those who suffered as a result of the collapse of Farepak and the concern that has been articulated to Members of Parliament. I recognise, too, the strong campaigning work that he and a number of my hon. Friends have done on the issue. He will recognise that there are some things that I cannot say on the Floor of the House. He has asked me a specific question. I will reflect on the answer and come back to him.

Greg Hands: The economy is contracting at the fastest rate in 30 years, yet the Government say that in 2011 the economy will grow at the same accelerated rate as they say it is currently contracting. Does the Minister really believe that British business can rely on the Government's growth figures, either now or going forward?

Ian Pearson: We published our growth forecasts in Budget '09 and we stand by them. As with any forecasts, they are built on the best available evidence at the time. We believe that growth will start to return to the UK economy around the end of this year. I am sure that everybody will welcome that. As for the growth forecasts to 2011 and beyond, it is important to recognise that there is potential capacity in the UK economy as we move out of recession. Through the measures that we have introduced as a Government, such as the fiscal stimulus and the strategic investment fund, which is supporting industry directly, and our competitive exchange rate in the UK, I believe that there are strong opportunities for the UK to power out of the recession and achieve the growth rates that the hon. Gentleman talked about and that are in the Government's forecasts.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister will have seen the reported comments of his ministerial colleague Lord Carter last month. He estimates that between 25 and 30 per cent. of the country will not be able to get next generation broadband if it is left to a purely economic case. I have a sneaking suspicion that if those figures are right, the communities in Orkney and Shetland will be in that 25 to 30 per cent. What actions does the Minister propose taking to ensure that we are not left playing catch-up yet again?

Gareth Thomas: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will commend the work that Lord Carter and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have been doing in looking at the issues in "Digital Britain". The first piece of work looking at the issues has been published, but further work will be done. The hon. Gentleman's comments about the needs of his constituency, given its remoteness, will of course be taken on board as part of that.

Richard Burden: Although I strongly agree with what my hon. Friend said earlier about the importance of not trying to conduct detailed negotiations with Jaguar Land Rover through the media, will he reflect on some of the principles involved? The first is that if large amounts of taxpayers' money is to be devoted to reducing the risks for other investors or giving them guarantees, it is reasonable to have mechanisms for monitoring the risk to that taxpayers' money. However, the objective should be to enable that investment to go ahead, rather than getting in the way of it.

Ian Pearson: We want the talks with Jaguar Land Rover to be brought to a successful conclusion to ensure that the company's short and medium-term financing needs are met. The company has said that it is unaware of any breakdown in talks, stating:
	"This has not come from anyone and it is as much as a surprise to us as it is to you. We have always said the talks would be difficult, but they are ongoing."
	The talks certainly are ongoing. My hon. Friend is right to point out that we are talking about investing taxpayers' money, whether that be through the guarantee to the European Investment Bank or other funding. It is right that we ensure the due diligence that one would expect to ensure value for money for the taxpayer.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Polling Day

Peter Bone: What guidance the Electoral Commission has issued to returning officers on steps to be taken in circumstances where the date of a polling day is changed after it has been announced.

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission informs me that it has not issued such guidance to returning officers. Any change to the date of a polling day would require legislation.

Peter Bone: I thank my hon. Friend for that response, but does he share my concern about what would happen if the swine flu pandemic were to escalate and hundreds of thousands of people were to be ill on 4 June? How could the elections possibly continue in such circumstances?

Peter Viggers: My hon. Friend is on to a potentially important point. The commission advises me that it is in regular contact with the Ministry of Justice on this issue and will keep the situation under review. The commission will consider issuing guidance, possibly in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice, if and when appropriate. Moreover, the commission has issued general guidance to returning officers that emphasises the importance of ensuring that they have general mechanisms in place to identify and manage risks and to develop contingency plans for dealing with such situations if they materialise.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Cathedral Chapters (Human Resources)

Michael Fabricant: What advice services are available to cathedral chapters on human resources matters affecting senior employees.

Stuart Bell: The Church Commissioners do not provide any such advice to cathedral chapters; nor do they provide funding specifically for this purpose. It is for each chapter to determine what human resources it requires. The Church welcomes the announcement by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform in January that employers will get a one-stop shop for guidance on employment legislation. We expect that cathedral chapters, like other employers, will find that helpful.

Michael Fabricant: I am rather disappointed by that answer. It would be helpful to cathedral chapters if advice were available on how to recruit senior members of staff such as chief executives. The hon. Gentleman might be aware that there have recently been problems in a number of cathedrals over the appointment of senior staff and, when those appointments have not worked out, over the subsequent dismissal of those members of staff. Surely the commission could be more proactive in giving advice in that area.

Stuart Bell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be encouraged by the fact that the number of dioceses employing human resources advisers is increasing following the passage of the Ecclesiastical Officers (Terms of Service) Measure 2009, which was passed by both Houses of Parliament and given Royal Assent earlier this year. Those advisers may give advice to cathedrals, but it is up to each diocesan board of finance to determine the area of responsibility covered by its human resources advisers. Unfortunately, the commissioners' remit does not go as far as the hon. Gentleman would wish.

David Taylor: On the human resources department's page on the Church of England's website, the first stated objective refers to the
	"development of a diverse workforce and a fair and just workplace".
	How can we allow a position in which we constantly experience delays in relation to women bishops? We cannot have a fair and just workplace when really talented women who could successfully fill those jobs are being denied the opportunity to do so, and it is certainly not a diverse work force when we have an all-male bishopric.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for keeping the question of women bishops in the public limelight, and certainly in the limelight of the House of Commons. As I have said many times:
	"The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small;
	Though with patience He stands waiting, with exactness grinds He all."
	The Synod is making progress on this issue and, while it might be a matter of regret that the House will not be able to vote on the concept of women bishops in this Parliament, I am sure the matter will come before the next Parliament.

Robert Key: I declare an interest as a lay canon of Salisbury cathedral. Will the hon. Gentleman consider the trailblazing approach adopted by the cathedral, which has 80 full-time employees and 600 volunteers? It employs a fully qualified full-time human resources manager, who also advises Sarum college, the cathedral school and the diocese of Salisbury, which in turn share human resources management across the region with other deans and chapters. This means that, together, they have a completely professional approach to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant).

Stuart Bell: As a canon, the hon. Gentleman will know that he is an office holder, not an employee, so he will not be covered by this aspect of the legislation. He has made an important, encouraging point, and I think that that approach is reflected in cathedrals up and down the land. I am sure that the hon. Member for Lichfield will find that his cathedral is also benefiting from the legislation and the announcement by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Electoral Registration

Simon Hughes: What steps the Electoral Commission has taken to increase levels of electoral registration among non-UK EU nationals resident in the UK to enable them to vote in elections for the European Parliament.

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission informs me that its public awareness campaign for the June 2009 elections includes online, radio and press advertising targeted specifically at EU nationals, explaining who is eligible to register to vote and how to register.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his answer and for that information, but I hope he will pass on the message that, given that we are only four weeks today from the European Parliament elections, there is not as much publicity as there should be to ensure the maximum turnout that I am sure we all want. Will he pass on the request that serious efforts be made over the next week or so, so that EU citizens—whether foreigners in Britain or Britons abroad—can participate in ensuring that the next European Parliament will be the most representative ever?

Peter Viggers: Indeed, the Electoral Commission seeks to encourage registration. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are two phases: the first is registration for local elections, and the second requires a statement that the individual will not vote elsewhere in the European Union if he or she wishes to vote here. The hon. Gentleman may also be interested to know that the Electoral Commission does not actually have the number of the 961,681 overseas voters from the EU—excluding Cyprus, Malta and Ireland—who are registered for the European elections, but it intends to collect such numbers after the next election. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the last date for registration for these elections is 19 May.

Mark Lazarowicz: The hon. Gentleman has reminded the House that EU citizens have to fill in a statement sent to them by the electoral registration officer if they wish to vote in this year's European elections. My understanding is that there is a vast disparity in different parts of the country about when those statements were sent out. In some places, they were sent out before Christmas; in others, they were sent out only in the last couple of weeks. Given that vast disparity and in order to ensure fairness across the country, will the hon. Gentleman suggest to the Electoral Commission that it needs a very urgent advertising campaign to ensure that statement forms are returned before the qualifying date so that people are not disfranchised as a result of slow procedures by some local authority registration officers?

Peter Viggers: Electoral registration officers have no specific statutory duty to seek out such citizens for this purpose. However, the commission informs me that it has recently issued guidance to administrators, suggesting that they send a European Parliament registration and declaration form to those citizens registered for local elections.

Philip Hollobone: What is the Electoral Commission's assessment of the extent to which EU citizens in this country are wrongly registered as British voters?

Peter Viggers: Almost by definition, the Electoral Commission does not possess such numbers, but in view of my hon. Friend's question, I will raise it with the Electoral Commission and write to him with the answer.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Agricultural Land Holdings

Nick Gibb: What the Church Commissioners' policy is on their agricultural land holdings.

Stuart Bell: The commissioners aim for the best possible total return from all their assets, not just from the rural portfolio, within an acceptable level of risk and in accordance with their ethical investment policy.

Nick Gibb: According to the secretary of the Church Commissioners, the primary objective is to make money. To that end, to the shock and horror of the people of Bognor Regis, the commissioners intend to concrete over 300 acres of beautiful and highly productive agricultural land to the west of Pagham and Bersted in my constituency. The commissioners have also attempted to triple the rents of tenant farmers in the area. Given that the Church Commissioners own the third largest holding of agricultural land in the country, is it not time that this land was put in the hands of a body that has the objective of looking after the countryside and encouraging the production of home-grown food rather than leaving the land at the mercy of an organisation that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are already running behind time.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Speaker; that was a statement, not a question. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the fact that the commissioners have gone to great lengths to meet and talk to him. He met the secretary, for example, and also representatives of our department that deals with agriculture. The commissioners are always happy to meet Members of Parliament and to discuss issues with them, recognising that they have constituency interests, so it is perfectly proper for the hon. Gentleman to raise this matter. I should add, however, that the commissioners have a legal and moral obligation to their beneficiaries. They aim to hold financial and ethical issues together and I, for one, think that they manage that balance rather well, but they are certainly not willing to ignore their fiduciary duty to obtain the best possible long-term return from their assets, even in the face of the occasional protest.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act

Greg Hands: What progress the Electoral Commission has made on ensuring that constituency accounting units are complying with the provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

Peter Viggers: In addition to its routine analysis, the commission wrote to all accounting units in March 2009, reminding them of their responsibilities regarding the filing of annual statements of accounts under the 2000 Act.

Greg Hands: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he share my concern that the Prime Minister's constituency Labour party appears to have submitted no constituency accounts to the Electoral Commission since 2006?

Peter Viggers: That specific point will, of course, be drawn to the Electoral Commission's attention. Generally, the commission will review the statement of accounts submitted at the end of April 2009, and will assess which accounting unit should be contacted to confirm compliance with the reporting requirement for 2008. Its general philosophy has been to allow accounting units to learn how the system works, and gradually to tighten disciplinary procedures. That is the procedure it will follow in the case in question.

Business of the House

Alan Duncan: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

Harriet Harman: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 11 May—Second Reading of the Equality Bill.
	Tuesday 12 May—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
	Wednesday 13 May—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
	Thursday 14 May—Topical debate, subject to be announced, followed by a general debate on swine flu.
	Friday 15 May—Private Member's Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 18 May will include:
	Monday 18 May—Opposition Day (11th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
	Tuesday 19 May—Remaining stages of the Policing and Crime Bill.
	Wednesday 20 May—Motion relating to the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General, followed by motion relating to national policy statements, followed by motion relating to the Communications (Television Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 2009.
	Thursday 21 May—Motion on the Whitsun Recess Adjournment.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 21 May will be:
	Thursday 21 May—Debate on the report from the International Development Committee on the World Food Programme and global food security.

Alan Duncan: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business. We are grateful that in a few moments we will have a further update on the spread of swine flu. I also thank her for acting on my suggestion last week that we should use next Thursday for a full debate on the matter. With some experts warning that the virus could cause the greatest damage next autumn, it is right that the House has an opportunity to discuss all aspects of that serious issue.
	May I applaud once again the courage and determination of the parliamentary ombudsman? Yesterday, she published a second, even more damning, report into what she termed the "unremedied injustice" inflicted on the thousands of pensioners who lost their money in the collapse of Equitable Life. It is an extraordinary document that exposes the casual cruelty of a Government who have become so involved with themselves that they have completely lost touch with those whom they are most supposed to serve.
	This is the sixth time that I have raised the issue at the Dispatch Box, and the right hon. and learned Lady seems incapable of telling the House how the Government intend to compensate those policyholders who face destitution in their retirement. The ombudsman has demanded compensation, but the Government are insisting on defying her. Many find that dismissive attitude sick and callous. Will the right hon. and learned Lady promise not to shame herself and her Government even further with another fob-off, and instead to grant the House the urgent debate that I and many others Members have sought for so long? Will she also promise to give us a firm and immediate plan for the compensation that justice requires?
	When it comes to justice, we should not need a celebrity campaigner to jolt the Government's conscience. We should none the less take the opportunity to congratulate Joanna Lumley, who has worked tirelessly to challenge the Government's shabby treatment of the Gurkhas. Miss Lumley says that she trusts that the Prime Minister will now do the right thing; let me add that the whole country hopes that it can trust the Prime Minister to do the right thing.
	There are already fears that the Prime Minister is rowing back from the apparent change of heart that was announced after his meeting with Miss Lumley yesterday. Let us be clear about this. When will we hear the statement that the Prime Minister promised during Prime Minister's questions yesterday, and when will the Government set out how they intend to make good his promises to Miss Lumley?
	As well as fair treatment for those who have served their country, there is the fair treatment to which everyone is entitled under our law. One of the great principles that are supposed to govern our claim to be a civilised society is the principle that everyone is innocent until proved guilty, and is properly treated as such. Keeping someone's DNA on record following arrest when no charges are subsequently brought introduces a cloud of permanent suspicion where none is warranted. Will the Leader of the House appreciate that providing a written statement on something so important just will not do, and that the retention of such records should be discussed either in a full debate or following a full oral statement? In the eyes of many, this is another example of the Government's having too little regard for civil liberty and justice.
	The news that 77 Chinese children have disappeared from a London care home over the last three years is totally horrific. One can but ask what on earth is going on. How can such a staggering fact be treated so lightly in the centre of government? The Prime Minister said yesterday that the Home Secretary would be investigating, and would report to the House. When will we be given a full statement about what has gone on?
	When will we next have a chance to debate health and safety rules? When we do, might we just be given an opportunity to discuss the absurdity of a police constable's refusal to get on a bike because he had not passed his cycling proficiency test? What does the Leader of the House think that Sir Robert Peel would have thought of this PC PC, and might she perhaps speculate on what Lord Tebbit would have to say on the matter?
	Will the Leader of the House also take the opportunity to comment on early-day motion 1356, which concerns the pay of House of Commons cleaners?
	 [ That this House recognises the invaluable contribution made by the House of Commons cleaners; notes that hon. Members depend on the vital services provided by these workers to ensure the smooth running of the House; expresses concern and disappointment that the House of Commons cleaners are receiving an hourly wage below the London Living Wage and that they have been waiting months for an agreed 45 pence rise in their hourly rate; and calls on KGB Cleaning and Support Services, the cleaners' employers, and the House authorities urgently to resolve this unacceptable situation and give these workers the pay they deserve. ]
	Does it cause her any concern for the security of this place and, perhaps, the security of our data that the company in question is called KGB Cleaning?

Harriet Harman: As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, he and all other Members will have an opportunity to hear more about swine flu from the Secretary of State for Health when he updates the House in his statement later today. In response to the hon. Gentleman's request, we have also chosen it as the subject for a general debate next week.
	We have agreed that following the mistakes made not just by Equitable Life but by the regulatory regime, financial recompense should be paid. Sir John Chadwick is looking into how the scheme can be put into effect.

Greg Hands: Get on with it.

Harriet Harman: He is getting on with it. He will update Ministers, and Ministers will update the House, very shortly. We are concerned about the fact that people have been affected by the mistakes made not only by Equitable Life but by the regulatory regime—for which the Government have apologised—and action will be taken.
	We did take action on the Gurkhas in 1997, but both the public and Parliament want us to do more, and we will. That has been made clear by the Prime Minister, and was also made clear in the statement at the end of the Opposition day debate last week.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) raised the question of the consultation on the keeping of DNA records, and asked whether this was not another example of our having too little regard for justice. I would say quite the opposite: this is us having regard for justice. I will give an example; Abdul Azad was arrested for violent disorder and had his DNA taken in February 2005. He was released without charge, but his DNA was kept. Later, there was a rape in Stafford, 25 miles away from where he lived. It was a stranger rape; the woman had no idea who had raped her, but a man's DNA was under her fingernails. Because his DNA had been kept after arrest for violent disorder, Abdul Azad was arrested and put in prison. I say to hon. Members that this is about justice. The point about rape is that it is often a repeat offence; not only is it important for that woman that justice should be done, but it protects other women. The hon. Gentleman puts himself against justice when he argues against keeping DNA on the database.
	On the question of the policeman failing to get on his bike, the only thing I can say is that if the Conservative spending cuts were put into effect, there would be fewer police to get on any bikes in the future.

Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend look carefully at what is happening on the east coast main line, one of our premier lines? Ever since National Express took over the franchise, it has systematically run down the quality of the line and put up prices. Surely our Government will not bail them out to the tune of £1 billion. Surely we should take the franchise away from National Express and run it as a national concern.

Harriet Harman: Perhaps I might suggest that my hon. Friend raises that issue at Transport questions next week.

David Heath: I notice that, on 19 May, we have the remaining stages of the Policing and Crime Bill; one single day, yet again, for a major criminal justice Bill. We have repeatedly argued that the Government simply cannot allow Bills to be taken through the House without key parts of criminal justice being discussed. Will she please look at that again?
	Perhaps we should have a debate on the wider conduct of the Home Office; the point, quite rightly, has been made about the way in which the Home Office has chosen, effectively, to ignore a court ruling against it on DNA samples. There is an inability to understand what the word "innocent" means; innocent means innocent. It is not a question of an offender or a repeat offence; it is an innocent person. That is the key to the debate that we should have.
	Perhaps we could also discuss why figures reveal that the stop-and-search powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 were used by the Metropolitan police on an enormous number of occasions; once every three minutes. Can that be justified?
	Last week, Lord Laming produced his progress report on the protection of children in England. It is very welcome, but it is simply a review of what has been happening. Can we have a debate on the future of child protection in this country and how we are going to establish proper and long-term measures to improve those areas that are falling lamentably short of what we expect on child protection, so that we can try to avoid the sort of tragedies that have become only too frequent?
	Lastly, could we have a debate to help the Government understand and recognise when they owe a debt of honour? I am still very concerned that the Government do not understand the decision of the House last week in respect of the Gurkhas. The Minister for Borders and Immigration said that he respected the will of the House of Commons. Yesterday, the Prime Minister could only say that the Government would listen to the voice of the House. As one of the co-sponsors of the motion that was passed overwhelmingly in this House, I do not know what part of the word "immediately" the Government do not understand, and that is what the motion said.
	The ombudsman report, already mentioned, refers to
	"an inappropriate attempt to act as judge and jury in its own cause."
	Do the Government not understand that their squirming on this issue—albeit it partly involves matters outside their own control—does them no credit at all, and that the ombudsman is right?
	Finally, let me turn to the issue of the Iraqi interpreters. I was absolutely against the expedition into Iraq, but I respect the fact that there were people in Iraq who were prepared to help the British forces by acting as interpreters. We now understand that the Government have peremptorily removed the scheme under which they are given protection and assistance to enter this country; that will come to an end on 19 May. That is no way to repay a debt of honour; the Government need to understand that.

Harriet Harman: I have made strong efforts to ensure that we do not overload the Report stage of the Policing and Crime Bill with Government amendments, unless they arise in response to points made in Committee. I will, however, look at how much time is needed for the Bill.
	On Equitable Life, as I said earlier, Sir John Chadwick has been asked to look into a number of important questions that will need to be considered for the setting up of a scheme. We hope to have an interim update from him very soon and, after he has reported, we will put in place a scheme that is fair to both policyholders and taxpayers. The complexities involved in this issue are exemplified by the fact that it took about four years for the ombudsman to produce her report. For each individual who has been affected, however, it is not a complex issue; they have lost out, and they need financial recompense. We are very concerned about this, and have taken action.
	As I am sure the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge, there was no right to settlement for any Gurkhas before 1997, and we acted. We have listened to public opinion and what the House has said, and we will go further, because that is in line with the public view and the will of the House as expressed in our debate last week.
	I will look for an opportunity to debate child protection. As a number of issues come together in this important matter, we might need to have a topical debate on it, and one is available next week.
	The hon. Gentleman has also raised the issue of the DNA database, and he has said that "innocent means innocent". Well, let me tell him about another case.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House made that case in a previous answer. As the point has been made, I think that we should leave it at that, because I am concerned about the business of the day; our earlier oral questions ran over their allotted time, and I want to be able to call Back Benchers to speak.

Harriet Harman: Therefore, I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said to the shadow Leader of the House.

Mark Fisher: Does the Leader of the House accept that the views expressed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) about the scrutiny of legislation on Report are shared and sympathised with across the whole House? Large chunks of major Bills—such as the Policing and Crime Bill, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and the Coroners and Justice Bill—are passing unscrutinised, and they often include Government new clauses and amendments. Is it not time that we returned to having programme motions by cross-party agreement in advance? We are sent here to scrutinise legislation, but if there is insufficient time on Report, it is impossible for us to do that job.

Harriet Harman: This year, we have given two days for the Report stage of two Bills. No Bill passes through this House without scrutiny both on the Floor of the House on Report and upstairs in Committee. Therefore, although there might be an argument about the amount of scrutiny, Bills do not pass without scrutiny, and I would not want my hon. Friend to make that point. We have to balance the need for debate and scrutiny on Report with the need for general debates, topical debates that the House asks for, and regular debates, such as on issues involving Select Committees and defence. We are always looking to ensure that we get the balance right.

Michael Mates: Will the Leader of the House please do something about the falling standards of ministerial replies to hon. Members? This morning, I have signed eight letters chasing Ministers. The Treasury is the worst offender—my correspondence with it dates back to January. For letters from hon. Members to go unanswered for that length of time is simply unacceptable. While the Leader of the House is addressing this matter, will she also try to put a stop to another trend, which is that ministerial replies are increasingly being signed not by Ministers, but by officials? That is simply not good enough.

Harriet Harman: As I said last week, I think we would all agree that it is all right for letters from Ministers to hon. Members to be dictated by the Minister but signed in their absence. However, I think there is an issue to do with what is being delegated to agencies, and I will look into that. There should be no official answers to Members of this House from departmental staff; if a Member writes to a Minister, the Minister should reply, because that is part of the nature of accountability. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to copy in the Deputy Leader of the House on this issue, and we will then follow up all the answers he has mentioned. This is not only a question of who answers; there must also be prompt answers. It is very important that information is given at the time that it is asked for; that is a basic, bottom-standard performance indicator for Ministers.

James McGovern: May we have a debate about the state of railway stations throughout the UK? I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend would agree that, for many visitors, railway stations form the first and last impression of a location. Unfortunately, however, the railway station in my Dundee constituency is both an eyesore and unwelcoming—unlike the people of Dundee, who love welcoming visitors to the city. Such a debate would at least allow me to determine who exactly is responsible for the railway station, as National Express, Network Rail, First ScotRail, the Scottish Executive and the separatist Scottish National party-led local council keep passing the buck to each other.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes that point forcefully on behalf of his Dundee constituency, and I suggest that he starts exploring the matter by asking an oral question at Transport questions next week.

John Hemming: Under this Government, we have witnessed the gradual decay of parliamentary democracy, with Opposition Members arrested for embarrassing the Government, constituents banned from speaking to MPs, and insufficient time allocated to important Bills such as the Policing and Crime Bill. Will the Leader of the House give Government time for the consideration of how we can get matters reported to the Standards and Privileges Committee? I have written to her previously about this.

Harriet Harman: I do not accept the argument that parliamentary democracy has been eroded. It is a matter for this House to ensure that all hon. Members do their job and hold the Government to account, and it is our responsibility to be accountable to this House.

Helen Southworth: Members of this House are extremely concerned about this week's shocking report on children who have gone missing from what should have been a place of safety. Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for us to have a thorough debate, in order to make sure that we are protecting children who go missing and are exploited—and, indeed, that we are doing everything possible to ensure that they do not go missing in the first place—and protecting children who are being targeted by predatory adults?

Harriet Harman: I know that this has been a long-standing concern of my hon. Friend, and that she has campaigned on protecting children in care. I will look for an opportunity to debate a number of such issues, including child trafficking, child protection and missing children; we might be able to have a debate on all those issues together.

Philip Davies: May I request that we use next week's topical debate slot to have a debate on prison sentences? The Magistrates Association recently called for the end-of-custody licence scheme to be withdrawn and for early release from a custodial sentence to be earned rather than automatic. Many of my constituents are sick to the back teeth of people being let out of prison, not because they deserve to be released or are no longer a threat to the public, but simply because there are not enough prison places. May we have a debate on this subject, which is a great concern to many people throughout the country?

Harriet Harman: There was a statement on prison places last week. We always take the views of the Magistrates Association very seriously, and I pay tribute to the many thousands of lay magistrates throughout the country. I will ask the Secretary of State for Justice to write to the hon. Gentleman and say what our response is to the Magistrates Association on this issue.

Andrew MacKinlay: May we have a debate consequent on the great events of last Monday, when thousands of migrant workers packed Westminster cathedral and then marched to Trafalgar square, as part of their campaign—supported by many Christian organisations—to advance from strangers to citizens? Part of the problem is the chaos at Lunar house, Croydon, and the inability of the Home Office to regularise the status of people who are entitled to become citizens, so that people are left languishing while they wait for their status to be determined. It is time that the Government got on top of the issue to overcome the anxiety, frustration and poverty that accompany this problem. Thousands of people demand justice and a resolution of their status, as reflected in the events on Monday.

Harriet Harman: I agree that tens of thousands of people marched in London on Monday, organised by the Churches and many other faith groups. Migrant workers play an important part in the life of this city. I do not accept that there is chaos at Lunar house. My constituency probably has more immigration cases than any other, and I can say that Lunar house is now making determinations much more quickly and fairly than it used to do.

Michael Spicer: When will the Leader of the House publish her decisions on the two pension matters that are currently before her?

Harriet Harman: I issued a written ministerial statement on the question of parliamentary pensions. I obviously keep in close touch with the chair of the parliamentary pension scheme and we will shortly bring the matter to the House for decision. We have made it clear that we do not think that there should be an increase in the Exchequer contribution, and we therefore propose an increase in contributions from Members to protect the Exchequer from having to put more money into our pension fund. That proposal will require the view of the House and a statutory instrument, and we will debate it shortly so that it can be backdated to 1 April.

Keith Vaz: Of course I have the greatest respect for my right hon. and learned Friend's views on the legal matters concerning the DNA database and I welcome the Government's decision to remove the names of some innocent people from it. However, that is not an adequate response to the judgment of the court, which found specifically that the Government were acting unlawfully. The database is growing at the rate of 15,000 names a week, and it is now the largest in the world. May we have a statement or a debate on the issue or, at the least, an extra day to discuss it during consideration of the Policing and Crime Bill? An extra day will not add greatly to the burden of the Government, but will provide us with an opportunity to explain why their position is wrong.

Harriet Harman: As I understand it, the issue is not included in the Policing and Crime Bill as it is to do with earlier legislation. The court case to which my right hon. Friend refers deals with the question of what is proportionate and what individuals should have to be prepared to tolerate in the interests of justice and protecting future victims. In the case of Kensley Larrier, it was proportionate to keep his DNA on the database after he was arrested for possessing a weapon. The proceedings were discontinued in 2002, but his DNA was kept and, after a rape many years later, it was available and he could be sent to prison. The database provides a major opportunity to bring rapists to justice that previously was not available. All those who argue against the DNA database have to answer to the victims of repeat offences, and we are not prepared to fail to use that tool as a weapon in the fight against rape.

John Leech: Later today a  Manchester Evening News petition, signed by more than 100,000 people and urging the Government to ensure that the Financial Services Compensation Scheme fully compensates the Christie hospital for the £6.5 million loss in a UK-regulated Icelandic bank, will be submitted to Downing street and Parliament. Will the Speaker arrange for time for a debate on how the Government will fully compensate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman means the Leader of the House. I have a different union card.

Harriet Harman: We are concerned about the Christie's charity and about all the other charities doing important work that has been put at risk because they had reserves in Icelandic banks. We are working on getting the money back to ensure that creditors are protected. Ministers have met the Christie charity's representatives, and we will respond early next month to the Treasury Committee's report on this issue.

Jim Devine: May we have a debate in Government time on the pensions of the bankers retiring from the banks in which we have a financial interest? I know that the Leader of the House shares my concern about Sir Fred Goodwin walking away with more than £700,000 a year, but yesterday we learned that Mr. Pell, another of the bankers who drove the Royal Bank of Scotland into the ground, will walk away with a pension of more than £500,000 a year. It would take the average nurse 20 years to earn that much. It is a scandal. Those bankers should have been sacked instead of getting pensions totalling £1.2 million.

Harriet Harman: As part of the review by the Financial Services Authority of the financial services industry, it is considering questions of corporate governance including financial remuneration at the top, which has in the past rewarded risk-taking, not to mention greed. The particular RBS pensions that my hon. Friend mentions were decided by the RBS board before the Government became a shareholder, but we have now made it clear that there are to be no excessive pensions or rewards for failure.

Bernard Jenkin: If I recall correctly, we were promised a debate on the Government's statement on Afghanistan and Pakistan last week, but that has been understandably replaced by the debate on swine flu next Thursday. When will we have the debate on Afghanistan and Pakistan? We may be short of parliamentary time for many of these debates, but we are not sitting for very many days this Session. We could always sit beyond 21 July—indeed, I do not recall rising so early for the summer recess before.

Harriet Harman: We had a statement from the Prime Minister last week on Afghanistan, and we had a statement on Afghanistan and Pakistan earlier this year. We know that the House wants the opportunity to hear statements and hold debates on this issue, and we will continue to look for opportunities to do so.

David Drew: My constituency has the misfortune of hosting Dr. Philip Nitschke tomorrow and many of us will be outside demonstrating against him. Given the debate on who should be allowed to enter this country, will my right hon. and learned Friend consult the Home Secretary on whether that individual should be added to the list, given that he openly encourages people to break the law and his views are abhorrent?

Harriet Harman: The Home Secretary exercises her discretion on whether to allow people to come into this country and Parliament has laid down the terms of reference for the exercise of that discretion. They include the people who would incite violence or breaches of the law, but it is not intended to stop people coming here to engage in public policy debates. I will ask the Home Secretary to write to my hon. Friend to explain her decision in that case.

Nicholas Winterton: Is the Leader of the House aware that her answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) was totally unacceptable and unsatisfactory? Bills are going to the other place with large tranches of them undebated in this place. Programming was not designed to prevent discussion on Report. If she receives a request for a second day's debate on Report for a major Bill, will she give it her most sympathetic consideration?

Harriet Harman: I have said that I will consider that specific point. However, Bills are scrutinised through the debates on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and in the House of Lords. Although I think that it is perfectly reasonable for hon. Members to identify particular Bills and to argue that there should be greater scrutiny, it is also important that they should not imply that this House is just rubber-stamping Bills. The public should understand the many hours that Members put into Bills, the hard work that goes into Committees and the difference that that makes as well as hearing that hon. Members want more time.

Derek Twigg: It is absolutely right that we deal urgently with any failings in child protection, as highlighted recently by the baby P case. I recently met a group of front-line children's social workers from Halton social services, which is a highly regarded social services department, and I was struck by their commitment, professionalism and determination to do their job. One thing that concerned them was the fact that the many good stories—the children whom they protect and the lives that are saved—are never highlighted. May we have a debate on the Floor of the House to highlight the importance of social work in child protection and to encourage people to join the profession, which is very important given the need for more recruits?

Harriet Harman: I agree with my hon. Friend. If we find the opportunity to debate the protection of children and children in care, perhaps it will be possible for the important work of front-line social workers to be highlighted. I also think that the opening of the family courts undertaken by the Ministry of Justice will allow people to see the important work that social workers do as they ask the courts to take children into care in order to protect them.

Evan Harris: Police reform, prostitution—buying and selling—lap dancing, alcohol and disorder, rendition, extradition, proceeds of crime and police accountability were all issues raised on Second Reading of the Policing and Crime Bill by hon. Members who were not going to be members of the Public Bill Committee. The Government added, too late for amendments to be tabled, gang injunctions and the DNA database—clauses 95 to 97 on pages 116 and 117. It is necessary that time to scrutinise the Bill should be available for Select Committee Chairmen and other hon. Members who were not on the Public Bill Committee. I am delighted that the Leader of the House will carefully consider this request and, if she agrees, she will fulfil the Prime Minister's pledge for greater parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive and we will all have our fair say on these important matters.

Harriet Harman: I underline to the hon. Gentleman and the House that there are discussions between the parties about the time allocated to Bills. It is true that agreement can not always be reached, but there are discussions. It is not as if we sit there and make a unilateral decision. There are discussions and we try to accommodate the Opposition's views and to strike the right balance. Sometimes the Back Benchers do not agree with the Front Benchers, and sometimes that happens on the Government's side as well as on the Opposition's.

Michael Ancram: Is the Leader of the House aware that under the European Union marine habitats directive the Spanish Government have designated as such a habitat waters including some of the territorial waters around Gibraltar? Will she arrange for the Foreign Secretary to come to the House to tell us what he intends to do to reassert British sovereignty over British territorial waters around Gibraltar?

Harriet Harman: I will ask the Foreign Secretary to write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to place a copy in the House of Commons Library.

John Hayes: It has been a bad week for Education Ministers. On Tuesday, on Report on the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill we had a brief opportunity—because of the proper strictures of the Chair—to debate the capital funding crisis in further education colleges, which has seen 144 college programmes frozen. Yesterday, in Westminster Hall, due to the good work of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), we had the opportunity to discuss a similar crisis in sixth-form funding. This all comes down to the relationship between the Learning and Skills Council and Ministers, as Sir Andrew Foster's report on the subject, which was commissioned by the right hon. and learned Lady's Government, said. However, there has been no chance to debate Andrew Foster's report and no oral statement to the House. Will she facilitate one with urgency?

Harriet Harman: The Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills has made a statement about the Learning and Skills Council in relation to capital funding in further education. The Prime Minister has answered questions on this subject and on sixth-form funding, and so have I. I will consider the suggestion that we should have a topical debate on the subject, along with the other suggestions that have been made today.

Mark Hunter: The Home Secretary announced this week that Greater Manchester, which includes my constituency, would pilot the Government's flawed and expensive plan for identity cards. Given the estimated £5 billion cost of the scheme and the deteriorating economic outlook since the plans for ID cards were first announced, does the Leader of the House agree that a debate to reassess the proposals, at the very least, would be appropriate before the people of Greater Manchester are once again asked to be guinea pigs?

Harriet Harman: The people of Greater Manchester are not being asked to be guinea pigs. The pilot project is entirely voluntary and if nobody wants to avail themselves of the opportunity to prove their identity on a biometric basis, they do not have to do so. As far as compulsion is concerned, there is a requirement that foreign nationals should give biometric details.  [Interruption.] I would say that that is working very well and it is very important. It speeds up people's ability to get visas, because there can be no doubt about identity fraud when the biometrics are there. That has been a thoroughly good thing; it has helped people to get their visas quickly and has stopped people from obtaining visas under a false identity.

Mark Hunter: Not for airport staff. What about airport staff?

Harriet Harman: I know that airport security is being debated with Manchester airport, just as it is with airports in London. Airport travellers would want to be sure that we use all the available weapons—perhaps that is the wrong word. We should use all the available means at our disposal to ensure that air travel is safe. If biometrics can contribute to the safety of air travel, then that is something on which we should press forward.

George Young: Can we go back to the reply that the Leader of the House gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) about Equitable Life? A serious constitutional issue needs to be addressed. In her report, "Injustice unremedied", the ombudsman said yesterday:
	"I therefore see no basis on which it can be said that Parliament has approved the approach adopted by the Government."
	Is it not therefore incumbent on the Government to provide not just a debate but a debate and a vote to see whether the House supports the Government or, as I suspect that it will, the ombudsman and the Select Committee?

Harriet Harman: The Government have accepted responsibility for putting in place a scheme that will provide financial recompense from the public purse for those on whose behalf mistakes were made by the management of Equitable Life and in the regulatory regime. We hope to have an interim update soon. Rather than considering this as a constitutional issue, we should consider it as an issue of people who have lost their money after having put it into Equitable Life in good faith. There were failures that go back to the 1980s. The Government are taking action. We have said that Sir John Chadwick will set up the scheme and there will be an interim update from him very soon. It took the ombudsman four years to produce her report because of the massive complexity of the case. We cannot just snap our fingers and work out what the compensation scheme should be. We are working on it, because we want to get financial recompense out to people as quickly as possible.

Richard Shepherd: It is not far off a year since the right hon. and learned Lady last convened the Modernisation Committee, when it was halfway through its investigation into the governance of Britain and we were poised to consider the Prime Minister's suggestions about dissolution and the powers of Parliament in respect of that. Does she propose to continue with the Modernisation Committee or has she just abandoned it? May we have a statement next week and an amendment to Standing Orders if that is now her position?

Harriet Harman: I have no proposal to amend Standing Orders. If the hon. Gentleman wants to suggest issues that he thinks should be taken by the Modernisation Committee, which cannot be taken forward by the Procedure Committee, I would be happy to discuss them with him.

Alan Reid: The report on Equitable Life raises a constitutional issue, in that it was compiled by the parliamentary ombudsman, not the Government ombudsman. The parliamentary ombudsman reports to Parliament, so surely Parliament should have the right to decide the matter. Why will the Government not put their proposals to Parliament so that Parliament can vote on them? If Parliament rejects them, the Government must bring forward proposals that are acceptable to it.

Harriet Harman: I have nothing to add to what I have already said, at length, to other hon. Members. We are concerned about the matter, and we are getting on with it.

Michael Jack: The Government have made it clear that they wish to safeguard manufacturing jobs, but recent reports in the  Financial Times and  The Times suggest that the Treasury is trying to frustrate the efforts of the Ministry of Defence to secure agreement with the partners and companies participating in the Eurofighter project on the size and timing of the tranche 3 element of the proposal. Will the Leader of the House find time for a statement to the House about precisely what is going on with tranche 3, so as to remove the uncertainty about the matter felt by thousands of aerospace workers in the north-west?

Harriet Harman: The Government place a high priority on supporting our manufacturing base. Obviously, there was an opportunity this morning to ask Ministers from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform about this matter. However, I will ask the Ministry of Defence to write to the right hon. Gentleman about his specific question on tranche 3 of the Eurofighter project.

Andrew MacKay: When the Leader of the House put the Government's case on the DNA database passionately, repeatedly and at length, did it not occur to her that that was precisely why there needs to be an oral statement from the Home Secretary? Feelings are running very high on the matter, and there is a lot that needs to be said. Should not the Home Secretary have been dragged to that Dispatch Box to make a statement?

Harriet Harman: It is only a consultation paper. My remarks could be seen as a contribution to the consultation, and we could take the remarks of those hon. Members who flatly disagree with me in the same way.

Christopher Chope: Can we have a debate on the Cabinet Office guidance to local authorities and regional development agencies on the forthcoming elections? The board of the south-west RDA is meeting on 18 May to decide major cuts to its programmes in the region, but it has now been ordered by the Cabinet Office not to announce the results of the meeting until after the elections on 4 June. The guidance states that the RDA
	"must not make announcements or publicise decisions that have the potential to affect voting intentions and therefore election outcomes."
	If that is the guidance from the Cabinet Office to the RDA, will it be applied to the Government as a whole?

Harriet Harman: The Cabinet Office guidance is designed to make sure that Government announcements do not interfere with local and European elections, and it simply draws the situation to the attention of all relevant organisations. The Government have made unprecedented investment in the regions, year on year, and we are proposing to continue to do so this year and next—

Christopher Chope: They are cuts.

Harriet Harman: The Opposition are proposing cuts. The Government are standing by our investment plans for this year and next, but the Opposition would cut public investment at the height of the recession. We say that that would make it longer and deeper.

James Clappison: Can we find time for a debate on early-day motion 1407 on the Potters Bar rail crash?
	 [ That this House notes that 10 May 2009 marks the seventh anniversary of the Potters Bar derailment; and expresses its regret that no form of public inquiry has yet taken place despite the clearly expressed wishes of surviving victims and bereaved families for such an inquiry to be held. ]
	Is the Leader of the House aware that next Sunday marks the seventh anniversary of the crash, yet there has still been no form of inquiry? Is not seven years simply too long for bereaved families, surviving victims, members of the travelling public and others to have to wait for answers to their questions?

Harriet Harman: I think that that is something that the hon. Gentleman could raise at Transport questions next week.

John Bercow: May I reiterate the eloquent pleas from hon. Members on both sides of the House for more time for consideration on Report of the Policing and Crime Bill? It has 10 parts and addresses a welter of contentious issues, which the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has already listed. There is a certainty of no fewer than 10 groups of amendments, and a possibility of 20 or such groups. We are at a late stage but there is still time for the right hon. and learned Lady to concede an additional day for consideration. If she does, will she take it from me that her willingness to listen and adapt will be greatly respected?

Harriet Harman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for adding his views to those of other hon. Members on all sides of the House. I will reflect on them. It was only the provisional business that I announced earlier.

Paul Goodman: My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) has done great work in his constituency by helping to set up a job club, and other Members of this House are looking at establishing similar initiatives. Will there be an opportunity in the reasonably near future for a debate on unemployment and employment, so that hon. Members can consider practical ways to help their constituents during these extremely difficult times?

Harriet Harman: We have spent a number of days debating the Budget, and one of them was focused on employment and unemployment. We were able to make the point that we hope that all the capital and investment that Government initiatives have put into the economy will mean that fewer jobs will be lost than would otherwise be the case. The investment of £1.2 billion in jobcentres will mean that those who lose their jobs will get prompt help and have a better chance of getting work in the future.

Nigel Evans: In April 2004, just weeks before European elections and with the Labour party dipping in the polls, Tony Blair had the brainwave of offering a referendum on the constitution. Shamefully, he withdrew the offer shortly before he swanned off, but here we are again—just weeks before European elections and support for the Labour party is haemorrhaging. I know that that has been a huge distraction for the Leader of the House, but could she possibly arrange for the Prime Minister to come to the Dispatch Box next week and re-offer the British public the referendum taken away from them so cruelly by Tony Blair?

Harriet Harman: The Prime Minister comes to the Dispatch Box every Wednesday. If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask him that question, he can.

Tobias Ellwood: Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the British tourism industry? It is our fifth biggest industry, and Britain is the sixth most visited country in the world. Millions of Americans come here, but one—the DJ Michael Savage—has been banned from the UK because of the stupid inflammatory remarks that he has made. He has told his audience of 10 million people not to come to the UK, so does the right hon. and learned Lady have a message for him? Does she have another, more positive message for the many Americans who might be thinking of coming to holiday in the UK?

Harriet Harman: I do have a message, and I am sure the whole House does, for the many hundreds of thousands of Americans who visit this country every year, and it is that they are very welcome tourists. The tourism industry is very important, and has been made more competitive by the change in the value of the pound, which has meant that holidays in Britain are even better value for money.

Peter Bone: The very sad news over the weekend that the Leader of the House had ruled out ever becoming Prime Minister gives rise to a constitutional problem. If the Prime Minister became ill, had an accident or was accidentally stabbed in the back, who would take over? Could we have a statement on that—or will the right hon. and learned Lady reconsider her position, as many Opposition Members would like?

Harriet Harman: That is not a matter for business questions.

Testing and Assessment

Edward Balls: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the report of the expert group on assessment that has been published today.
	Over the past 10 years, thanks to increased investment and great teaching, there has been a significant rise in standards in our primary and secondary schools. Testing and assessment have played a vital role in bringing about those improvements, and they continue to do so. However, the system is not set in stone. In my statement to the House in October, I set out three key principles that guide our approach. They are that we have to give parents the information that they need, to enable head teachers and teachers to secure the progress of every child, and to allow the public to hold national Government, local government and governing bodies to account.
	Having also studied the Select Committee's report on testing and assessment, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners and I concluded, on the basis of those principles and the key role that GCSE results play in secondary school accountability, that we would end key stage 3 national curriculum tests for 14-year-olds. I also said that the national curriculum tests at the end of key stage 2 provide the only objective measure of attainment during primary school, and that they are therefore essential to giving parents, teachers and the public the information that they need about the progress of each primary age child and of every primary school. However, I also said that I take seriously the concerns that some have raised about key stage 2 testing and accountability, so I announced the establishment of an expert group to advise us on the future of testing and assessment and its role in school accountability.
	Over the past six months, the group has widely consulted head teachers, teachers, parents, subject associations and academics, as well as schools engaged in our stage not age single-level test pilots. I have now received the group's final report, and I have placed copies of it and my reply in the Libraries of both Houses. I should like to thank the group's members for all their hard work.
	The expert group has recommended that we improve the transition between primary and secondary school, including through stronger links between schools, an extended project and a new primary graduation certificate that recognises each child's achievements; intensify our focus on catch-up learning during years 7 and 8 for those who fall behind during primary school, including through developing a progress check for those children at the end of year 7; strengthen the quality of teacher assessment, including in IT; continue to make key stage 3 tests available to all secondary schools, including the 75 per cent. of schools that have requested them this year; use a national sample test to ensure that standards are maintained; and strengthen the school accountability system by introducing a new school report card.
	On key stage 2 national curriculum tests, the expert group has made a clear recommendation about English and maths. The group says:
	"Externally marked and validated tests play an important role in the accountability system",
	and, it concludes that
	"removing externally marked Key Stage 2 tests now, and replacing them with teacher assessment only, would represent a step backwards for pupils' learning and for school accountability."
	So, it recommends that
	"Key Stage 2 tests in English and maths should remain as a key accountability measure for all primary schools".
	The group also recommends that we continue and extend our trials of stage not age tests; and that we move the key stage 2 test back from May to mid-June, so that there is continued learning to the end of year 6 and the role of teacher assessment in the transition to secondary school is strengthened.
	On science, the expert group concludes that we can improve the teaching and assessment of the subject, and reinforce its critical role in the new primary curriculum, by replacing the externally marked test with enhanced teacher assessment that better recognises whether pupils have a firm grip of the practical nature of science and the skills to develop and apply scientific understanding.
	I can confirm that I will accept the expert group's recommendations in full and now consult on their implementation. We will now move forward with our stage not age test pilots and trial, replacing the standard key stage 2 tests with single-level tests in maths for pilot schools next year. In addition, because the expert group rightly stresses that the importance of science will only grow, I intend to ensure that there is externally validated accountability for national standards in science by introducing a new sample test at key stage 2—going beyond the expert group's recommendations. I am pleased that the Royal Society, the Science Community Representing Education—SCORE—the Science Learning Centres, the Association for Science Education, the Wellcome Trust and the Gatsby Charitable Foundation have all agreed to work with us to design that national sample test and to strengthen the teaching and assessment of science in our primary schools.
	The issue of key stage 2 tests is controversial and, as the expert group says,
	"some schools, teachers and educational organisations are concerned that the use of the outcomes of external tests for purposes which are 'high stakes' for schools can lead to unequal attention to all pupils' needs, and to pupils being put under undue pressure".
	That is why the expert group has asked us to provide new guidance to schools to ensure that preparation for key stage 2 tests is proportionate and educationally appropriate. However, the expert group also concludes:
	"Many concerns about testing arise not from the tests themselves but from the uses to which the test data is put, and the impact this can have on school and teacher behaviour."
	I agree that that wider issue of accountability is at the heart of concerns about key stage 2 tests.
	Parents currently find published league table information easy to understand, but by focusing only on the performance of the average child, those tables do not challenge schools on whether they are stretching their most gifted and talented pupils or helping those who have fallen behind; they do not recognise the extra challenges that some schools face in helping children from disadvantaged backgrounds to succeed; and they ignore discipline, attendance, parental satisfaction and the vital contribution that schools make to children's wider development. That is why the report card will, for the first time, provide easily accessible information on all those aspects of school performance. It must be fair to all schools and help parents and others to make meaningful comparisons between schools.
	Although some have said that league tables should be banned, that is simply not an option, as all the data are rightly in the public domain and will continue to be. It is therefore essential that the school report card provide a better balanced and clearly superior alternative to old-style league tables. I know that there are strong views about whether the report card should be based on a single grade, or on a combination of grades measuring attainment, progress and well-being, but without an overall score or grade on the report card it is very hard to see how it can allow between schools appropriate comparisons that both take account of the range of schools' work and are as compelling and easy to understand as those provided by old-style league tables. We will now consult further on that issue in advance of our forthcoming schools White Paper.
	Others have called for us to drop key stage 2 tests entirely, but the expert group is clear that to drop them entirely would be the wrong thing to do. Furthermore, independent surveys of parents show that the clear majority value the information that the tests provide. I know that head teachers take their statutory responsibilities and position as role models to young people extremely seriously, and I know that they want nothing less than the best for the children in their schools. However, as the expert group says,
	"the most successful and most trusted organisations, including outstanding schools, colleges and universities, welcome high levels of accountability as they seek constantly to improve what they do."
	That is true professionalism and the responsible road to take. So, I urge all those who put the interests of pupils and parents first to continue to work with us to reform the testing and accountability system.
	Continuing key stage 2 tests in English and maths, alongside the wider reforms we are announcing today, is vital to give parents the information that they want and need; to enable head teachers and teachers to secure the progress of every child and their school as a whole; to allow the public to hold national and local government and governing bodies to account for the performance of schools; and to raise standards for all children. I commend this statement to the House.

Michael Gove: I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of the statement and the chance to read some of the expert group's recommendations. I also join him in thanking the expert group for its work and commitment, which I know he shares, to doing everything that it can to improve state education for all children.
	Today's statement follows the fiasco of last year's standard assessment tests—SATs—when the Government presided over a comprehensive shambles. It was both an administrative disaster, for which some have paid the price, and a challenge to all of us to think about how we can improve the testing and assessment regime in our schools. The Secretary of State was right to say that the regime that he inherited should not be set in stone, but, even as we constantly strive to improve how we assess our children, does he not agree that we should also ensure that the assessment process is built on certain enduring principles?
	Last October, the Secretary of State said that it was right that all the tests at key stage 2, including science, should be subject to external assessment. He specifically said that in his judgment,
	"parents want the same certainty at key stage 2...that they currently get with GCSE".
	That is the certainty that externally set and marked tests provide. He argued then against sampling, because that would deprive parents of
	"objective evidence on the performance of an individual school"
	and would not deliver for "every parent" a reliable guide to their child's progress. Further to that, he argued:
	"Asking schools to take on the burden"
	of teacher assessment would add to the bureaucratic load on teachers and simply
	"would not be the right thing to do for parents." —[ Official Report, 14 October 2008; Vol. 480, c. 684-90.]
	That is why he rejected the road of teacher assessment for English, maths and science at key stage 2. What has changed to make him abandon those principles now? Why should parents not have the certainty that external assessment in science provides? Why should parents now have less objective information about their children's progress? Why should they now lose out on valuable information with which they can measure the performance of individual schools? Crucially, if teacher assessment is right for science, why is it not right for English and maths? I am delighted that the Secretary of State has the support of the Royal Society and others in designing a new, improved science test for key stage 2. However, if the new sample test is so good, why is every child not allowed to sit it?
	Improving our performance in science education is crucial to improving our economic performance as a nation and vital if the next generation are to grow up as rational, questioning and informed citizens with the knowledge and skills to master the challenges of an ever more complex world, but today's announcement comes against a backdrop of declining faith in the rigour of the science education that we offer young people. In GCSE science, students are asked whether people look at stars with microscopes or telescopes and whether the fact that nuclear power stations provide jobs is an argument in favour of nuclear power or against it. They are asked whether seat belts are a safety feature in cars, whether the sun orbits around the earth and whether battered sausages are healthier than grilled fish. Many of the questions are not tests of scientific knowledge and involve only straightforward English comprehension.
	The Royal Society of Chemistry has said that changes to the science curriculum have been "a catastrophe". Just last week, the Government announced the downgrading of science in the primary curriculum as part of a broader relegation of the importance of subject disciplines. Is now not precisely the wrong time to downgrade science and move away from rigour? Should the Secretary of State not be outlining ways in which assessment of all children, and not just a sample few, is to become clearly and unambiguously more authoritative, rigorous and stretching?
	As the Secretary of State knows, parents want more rigour and better information about how their children are doing. That is why we welcome the principle of a report card that outlines in greater detail how schools are performing, so that parents have a more rounded picture of achievement. However, if it is right for there to be more information overall, how can it be right to have less information on how children are doing in science? If it is also right to ensure that we better reflect how children are stretched and challenged and how the less able are helped to improve in primary school, should that not apply to GCSE league tables as well? Should we not move away from the current focus on the C/D borderline so that we have a measure of testing how schools perform that rewards those that stretch the most able and also those that encourage less able children to do even better? I hope that the Secretary of State will be open-minded about such a change.
	Like many, we share the Secretary of State's concerns about teaching to the test, but is not the answer to improve the quality of the externally set tests rather than to abandon them? If the Government are really concerned about teaching to the test and about narrowing the curriculum, why are they pressing ahead with their plans for what they have called single-level tests? Would their plans not mean that, instead of a one-off measure of real performance, children would be sitting tests again and again throughout primary school, as schools strived to improve their league table performance? Would they not mean that teaching and learning would be crowded out by tests and cramming to prepare for the growth in testing?
	We know that parents support clear, rigorous and transparent testing at the end of primary school. According to the Government's own statistics, three quarters of parents believe that externally marked tests in every subject at the end of primary education are accurate and worth while. We need the most accurate possible information about how our children and our schools are doing. At a time of economic upheaval and transformation, we need a stronger emphasis on science in our schools, and we need the sharpest possible accountability in every area of academic performance. Sadly, I fear that by declining to stand up to outside pressure and by retreating on the principle of external assessment, the Secretary of State has failed the test of ensuring that he defends what is best for our children.

Edward Balls: I have been trying to work out from the hon. Gentleman's reply whether he supports or opposes what we are doing today; to be honest, I have ended up a bit confused. We are taking forward robust assessment and testing of children through the continuation of key stage 2 tests, and we are going to introduce a report card designed precisely to ensure that primary and secondary schools are judged on the achievements of all their pupils, and not just on those of their pupils on the C/D borderline. As I said, I struggled to understand what the hon. Gentleman was saying in much of his response, although I think that, in the main, he was supporting what we are doing.
	Jim Rose's report last week made it absolutely clear that science is at the centre of the primary curriculum. However, the expert group on testing which I set up last autumn has said:
	"We have consulted widely with science education bodies, learned societies and others, and have concluded that unlike in English and mathematics, the summative assessment of the Key Stage 2 science curriculum is not best done through an externally set and marked written test. The difference in value of the test is illustrated in part by the fact that Key Stage 2 English and mathematics results better predict later achievement in science than the Key Stage 2 science test does. In place of the science test, high quality supported teacher assessment should be used."
	I have accepted the advice of the expert group on the basis of its consultation with a range of experts from the science community, including the Association for Science Education, the Wellcome Trust, the Royal Society and many others. They will work with us to take forward what they believe is the right way to strengthen science and its assessment. Once again, the experts and the widespread community will work with me to take forward the proposals in the teeth of opposition from the shadow Secretary of State, who is isolated on this point.
	The issue of whether I have changed my position since the autumn has been raised. The fact is that in the autumn the shadow schools Minister said in an Adjournment debate that it was essential that we kept key stage 3 tests. A few days later, the shadow Secretary of State changed his mind and completely contradicted that, supporting our position. I am rather hoping that, when he reflects on the issue of science, he will also decide to change his position.
	We are moving forward on the basis of enduring principles: doing the best by parents, pupils, teachers and head teachers to make sure that they are properly accountable. The expert advice is that we should proceed in that way. That is what I am doing, consistently with my principles. The idea that I am backing down on the issue is complete nonsense. We will ensure that we continue with key stage 2 tests in English and maths, as the expert group recommends. We will make sure that there is proper accountability through the report card. I hope that the shadow Secretary of State will reflect a little and decide to change his mind and support us.

Barry Sheerman: As my right hon. Friend may remember, the Children, Schools and Families Committee produced its report on testing and assessment a year ago next week. I congratulate him on having listened to the Committee's recommendations and to the expert group that he set up. I welcome much of what he said today, as will many members of my Committee.
	May I push the Secretary of State on the issue of report cards? He knows that the national curriculum, public and educational accountability, and the method of testing all hang together. I hope that he will look very soon at our recent report on the national curriculum in the same positive way as he has looked at testing and assessment. There is one particular concern about report cards—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Other Members want to ask questions about the statement.

Barry Sheerman: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State can respond to the hon. Gentleman now.

Barry Sheerman: Why is it that in this House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not challenge the Chair.

Barry Sheerman: The Chair is wrong.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The statement has started, and there is a second statement after this one. In the Chamber, we can seem to have plenty of time one minute, but the next minute hon. Members are very cross because they have not been able to get their chance to question the Secretary of State. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels as he does, but that is the position.

Edward Balls: I very much appreciate the work done by my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee over the past year on these issues. He is right to say that the primary curriculum, testing and accountability all hang together. It has been helpful to us that Sir Jim Rose has been doing the primary curriculum review and sitting on the expert group. My hon. Friend is right to point out that we must ensure that the accountability system works to reflect both the curriculum and the testing regime in a way that is fair to all schools. I hope that in the coming weeks before the White Paper we will have the chance to explore these issues, particularly the report card, in greater detail in the Select Committee. It is very important that we get this right. I hope that I have allowed more consultation on the report card and the difficult issue of a single grade so that we can go into this in depth. I appreciate my hon. Friend's contribution.

Annette Brooke: First, may I pass on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), who is unable to be here today? I thank the Secretary of State for prior notice of the statement. I also thank the expert group for its work.
	We welcome the scrapping of the key stage 2 science test in its current form, but we query the timing of this statement. If the test is useless, what message does that give to children who will presumably be taking it in the next week or two? Notwithstanding the Rose review's areas of learning, we seek assurances that science will not be squeezed out of the primary curriculum.
	On single-level tests, how many schools are participating in the pilot? How long does the Secretary of State expect the pilot to run? Does he share our concerns about increased testing?
	The expert group used the phrase
	"unequal attention to all pupils' needs".
	That seems to be code for teaching to the test. The Select Committee and Ofsted have expressed concern about teaching to the test, and the Secretary of State says that he is going to issue guidance. I understand that there is already a memorandum. What is the difference between a memorandum and guidance?
	What steps is the Secretary of State going to take to increase on-screen marking? What consideration will he give, and has he given, to more teacher assessment with external moderation? We agree that we need some external moderation at key stage 2, and, potentially, external sample testing. It is important to get the basics right. It is a scandal that one in three children is leaving primary school not having reached acceptable standards in literacy and numeracy. Along with the basics, I want rich experiences for primary school pupils to give them a real joy in learning and stimulate them to creativity. Most of all, I want us to have a firm foundation so that further down the line we will get excellence in all subjects, but particularly a good flow of students taking and expanding their studies in the STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Edward Balls: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady's desire to ensure that all children enjoy and are stretched by the primary curriculum. I hope that she welcomes the Rose review, which is designed to achieve precisely that. I can assure her that it places science absolutely at the centre of the curriculum. Far from downgrading science, the reason this has been proposed by the expert group and supported by all the scientific expert organisations that I listed is that they know that it will strengthen young people's enjoyment and achievement in science.
	The hon. Lady is right that we must build on the progress that we have made. Ten years ago, 63 per cent. of young people in primary school were getting to the right level; that has gone up to 81 per cent. after years of stagnation with the Conservatives. In maths, the figure has gone up from 62 to 78 per cent. We need to ensure that every child succeeds, but only through our investment and our support for teachers and the progress of every child have we achieved these huge rises in standards after years of under-investment and stagnation with the Conservatives. We must not go back to the bad state of education in those previous years.
	About 300 schools are working with us in the single-level testing pilots, which are about trying to ensure that tests are truly designed for the progress of every child. We have said—and the expert group says very clearly—that we will not move forward to any wider implementation of single-level tests until we have seen the evidence, particularly where that becomes the main focus of accountability, which will happen next year in schools where we will use the single-level test instead of the key stage 2 test for mathematics.
	The hon. Lady is right that teacher assessment has an important role to play. Through the report, we are strengthening the role of teacher assessment in the transition from primary to secondary school. She will not like this, and nor will the Liberal education spokesperson, but the expert group says that there is no evidence to give us confidence that moderated teaching assessment can provide the objective measure of performance in primary schools that we need. That is why, I am afraid, it rejects the proposal to extend teacher assessment that the hon. Lady and her party support.
	Of course we must not have teaching to the test, and the best schools do not do that. The way to avoid it is to ensure that we have not only great teachers but the right accountability system. That is why the report card is so important in focusing on the progress of every child. Although the hon. Lady did not mention it, I hope that she will welcome that when we publish our White Paper in the coming weeks.

Kerry McCarthy: The other day I met in Parliament a primary school teacher from Bristol who raised with me several concerns about the testing regime. I am sure that he will welcome some of the Secretary of State's announcements, although he may feel that they do not go far enough. One of his concerns was about how much of the school budget is spent on extra support for pupils who are just under the cusp of passing the test to ensure that they get through it, and whether that means that children who do not stand any chance of reaching the required level are left by the wayside. What assurances can the Secretary of State give to teachers and to the parents of such pupils that children will not be abandoned because there is not much chance of their reaching the level of the test in the time scale required?

Edward Balls: I can give this assurance. We are changing the nature of school accountability away from the current focus on the performance of the average child, which, as my hon. Friend says, incentivises focusing on children just below that level, to give schools proper credit for the progress not only of the most talented children but of the children who fall behind. The report card is the right way to do that. As teachers, head teachers and parents look at our proposal in detail in the coming weeks, they will see that that situation, rather than the testing regime, needs to be changed in order to ensure that we achieve the outcome for every child that my hon. Friend supports.

James Clappison: Notwithstanding the reams of statistics that the Secretary of State mentioned and the learned groups and experts whom he prayed in aid, does he accept that there is a widespread public concern, which my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) expressed, about the degree of rigour in education and the level of attainment in difficult subjects such as sciences and languages, which goes right the way up to university level, is often found by employers, and is reflected in university applications? Will the Secretary of State bear that in mind, or does he think that it is completely ill founded?

Edward Balls: We recently had an international and independent report, the Tymms study, which showed that in maths and in science, English education is now right up there with the best and ahead of our European partners. Instead of listening to the rhetoric of his Front Benchers, he should study the facts, where he will find real progress and rising standards year on year, internationally verified. We are legislating to introduce the independent body, Ofqual, to try to give greater assurance to parents and teachers that standards are rising and to find an antidote to the continual attempts by Opposition Front Benchers to talk down the achievements of teachers and children in our country.

Brian Jenkins: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement; no doubt his report card will say "Reasonable progress to date". However, when he refers to student learning and school accountability, is he sure that he does not mean student learning or school accountability? Student learning comes with a report card on the progress that a student has made; school accountability comes from the summation of the added values for those children shown by their report card. He is up to date, but so that he is not fixed in stone, will he keep an open mind in future as regards getting rid of these set tests, finding a way of spot-checking the progress children make in our schools, and reinforcing school accountability?

Edward Balls: We have shown over the past few months that we are willing to reform the system on the basis of the best expert advice and try to build a consensus on the way forward on testing and accountability. As the expert group says, many of the concerns are not about the tests themselves but about how they are then used. My hon. Friend is right that as well as focusing on average attainment in the class, we must look at the progress that children make and the disadvantage that they start with and experience while learning, as well as the views of parents and children and their wider well-being. All those things are what parents value in a school and what head teachers want to deliver for all the children in their school.
	I am not seeking to abolish old-style league tables—that would be the wrong thing to do. I want to put in place a simple and compelling report that compares school by school but does so fairly on the basis of some of the issues that my hon. Friend raises. That is the biggest reform that we can achieve, and I hope that we will have support not only from Labour Members but from the Conservatives—although I will not hold my breath.

Nigel Evans: Clearly the Secretary of State's report card would say, "Shocking; could do better; should be kept back a year" or something along those lines, because his explanation today has not been very good. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) asked him what the major difference was between maths and English and science that meant they were being treated differently. I agree that there should be enhanced teacher assessment, although I rather hope that that is what good teachers would be doing in any event, because they would want to know where the deficiencies were with any of their youngsters, but we must still have the important external rigour and independence.
	Surely part of the problem, as my hon. Friend said, is the simplicity of some of the questions that youngsters are now being asked. They are hardly challenging. They cannot be, because even I could answer some of the questions that my hon. Friend read out—not all of them, but some, and I am not good at science. Surely we ought to be trying to enthuse our youngsters into being attracted to science not only in primary school but in secondary school and on to university. Sadly, over the past few years university science courses have shrunk, and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Edward Balls: I fear that the explanation for the hon. Gentleman's self-confessed lack of progress in and understanding of science is that, unfortunately, he almost certainly went to school under a Tory Government. Today, young people going to school under a Labour Government are getting a quite different experience of science education. If he would like some remedial learning, I can absolutely have that arranged.
	The expert group makes it clear that:
	"The practical nature of science and the importance of learning science by inquiry...make it distinct."
	It explains why science learning and understanding is better suited to a different type of testing from that for English and maths. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will study the report.
	The hon. Gentleman mentions being held back. There have been a number of Opposition proposals on testing and assessment. About a year and a half ago, they proposed that 11-year-olds who do not make the grade in primary school should be held back for a further year. We do not hear much about that from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), although it was his party's leader who set that out in  The Sunday Telegraph in September 2007. The reason why the Opposition do not talk about it is that it was roundly condemned by head teachers, teachers and parents, who were horrified at the prospect that a child in year 6 would suddenly be with a whole load of pupils who had been held back for another year. The hon. Gentleman says that people should be held back, but that was a Conservative proposal that was rejected by parents, although the Opposition Front Benchers have not yet withdrawn it. Maybe they will do that today.

Dari Taylor: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and I am pleased to hear that continued consideration will be given to the effectiveness of testing and assessment. I should like to put it on record, and I should like him to acknowledge, that in Stockton we have seen seriously improved assessed standards in primary schools, driven by highly professional teaching staff and head teachers.
	During the conducting of this valuable study, did any teachers or head teachers make the statement that their teaching now lacks creativity as a consequence of testing and assessment?

Edward Balls: I am sure that there are some head teachers and teachers who believe that the way they approach testing in year 6 reduces creativity. I do not find that that is the general pattern, and in fact the best teachers and outstanding leaders know that the way to get pupils to succeed, including in their tests, is to inspire them and have a creative curriculum. The reason for the rise in standards in recent years has been in part great teaching but also the focus and accountability that the tests bring. I pay tribute to the schools in my hon. Friend's constituency, because after years of stagnation under the Conservative party, standards have been rising because of investment and great teaching. We want to keep that investment flowing in future years, so that standards can keep rising for her constituents.

Graham Stuart: The chief inspector of schools told the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families yesterday, when asked who she thought would write the school report cards, that she was not sure. When pushed, she said that she assumed it would be the Department, and then said that really she had no idea. Can the Secretary of State tell the House who will be writing and signing off school report cards? If he does know the answer to that question, will he explain why he has not shared it with the chief inspector of schools?

Edward Balls: I hate to chastise a member of the Select Committee, but one would have thought that he might read some of the published documents and discussions about the school report card. If he had, he would not have asked a question that was so far off the mark.
	The school report card, as we set out in the autumn, will be compiled on the basis of a series of different data sources, all of which need to be objective and externally verifiable. They will include data on attainment, progress, the views of parents and children, education outcomes and health outcomes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I are working together closely to ensure that progress on the health of children will be reflected in the school report card.
	The report card will not be written; it will be compiled from a series of externally validated data sources on the basis of clear, widespread consultation. That will be done through statute, which will be brought to the House, and on the basis of an agreement that we believe can be reached consensually. As I said, the report card will be published for every school based on those external data sources, according to a formula that we will consult on and agree. We will bring forward proposals for that formula in the White Paper. It will be externally verifiable, but it will be done school by school—

Graham Stuart: By whom?

Edward Balls: By the school, of course.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the Secretary of State completed his remarks?  [Interruption.] No, no, I am not insisting, but he is taking interventions from a sedentary position. Is he happy to finish there?

Edward Balls: Well, I have not answered the question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With respect, the Secretary of State has already spent quite some time doing that.

Edward Balls: I was instructed that it was quite important that I took a bit of time, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	We will ensure that this is done in such a way that each school will be able to produce its own report card in the public domain, based on objective criteria on which we will consult widely and which will be independently verified. Each school will be able to produce and publish it. Of course that will be done in consultation with Ofsted and Ofqual to ensure that is objective and done properly. The reason why I was rather surprised by the question is that if the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart), who is a member of the Select Committee, had studied the reports properly, he would not have asked such a ridiculous question in the first place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Well, I think that we can now move to the next statement.

Swine Flu Update

Alan Johnson: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a further statement on swine flu. The World Health Organisation alert remains at phase 5, which means that although the current outbreak is not yet classified as a pandemic, it could become one at any point as the disease develops.
	At present, there are 1,518 confirmed cases across the world, and 29 deaths from swine flu have been confirmed in Mexico and two in the United States. The Health Protection Agency will announce this afternoon that there are currently 34 confirmed cases in the UK, but there is not yet evidence of sustained person-to-person transmission—that is to say, people in the community who have no obvious link with each other catching this disease.
	Ten people who are not known to have travelled to Mexico caught the virus in the UK from other infected people who are close contacts. We can reasonably expect the number of such cases to increase considerably over the coming weeks.
	Of the UK cases, 13 are children. Following expert assessment, four schools closed on the advice of local health protection officers to contain any potential outbreak. A fifth school and a linked nursery decided to close of their own volition after two pupils at the school were confirmed to have the disease, though they had not been at school when symptomatic. I can confirm that one of the two additional cases announced today is a child at that school.
	We recognise the enormous disruption that school closure can cause pupils, parents and staff. I would like to reassure parents that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families has well established plans, including procedures to handle any disruption to exams.
	Although the overall number of cases in the UK is still relatively low, the situation remains serious and could rapidly escalate. Our current approach is one of containment while preparing for a further phase when that is no longer possible.
	As I announced to the House last week, we have taken steps to increase our already substantial stocks of antivirals to enable us to cover 80 per cent. of the population, although I stress again that we do not expect anywhere near those numbers to be affected.
	We are also increasing our stockpiles of antibiotics, which are essential for treating any potential complications caused by swine flu, so that we have enough to cover 30 per cent. of the population by September. We have ordered an additional 227 million surgical face masks and 34 million respirators, which, if used properly, can prevent transmission to NHS staff who are in close and frequent contact with patients.
	As the World Health Organisation has made clear, one of the critical elements of any country's response to the situation is how the public are kept informed of developments, the steps they can take to protect themselves, and what they should do if they or a family member fall ill.
	A mass public health campaign has begun with print, television and radio advertising. Leaflets are being delivered to every home with information about the outbreak and the preventive measures people can take. Recorded information is available on the swine flu information line: 0800 1 513 513.
	The evidence so far shows that the message is getting through, not only in making people generally aware of swine flu, but, critically, in conveying the importance of good respiratory hygiene. The response from the public has been both responsible and proportionate, as, indeed, it has generally been from the media, which also have a vital role to play.
	I turn now to the steps that we are taking to contain the current virus, all of which are based on the best scientific evidence. We can be thankful that we know a great deal more about these issues than Governments who had to deal with pandemics in the last century. However, we still do not know enough about the nature of this specific virus. Leading scientific experts in this country and across the world are urgently studying whom the virus is most likely to affect, whether it will mutate, and the possibility of its re-emergence in the autumn as a more dangerous strain.
	While it seems that those who developed the disease outside Mexico have generally experienced only mild symptoms, there has been a second death in America, of a woman who apparently had chronic underlying health conditions. The Health Protection Agency and the scientific advisory group on emergencies, which is jointly chaired by the Government's chief scientist Professor John Beddington and by Professor Sir Gordon Duff, chair of the scientific pandemic influenza advisory committee, are clear that it is still too early for confident predictions about the possible severity of the flu in the UK.
	The current containment phase means that all those who contract the virus are given antivirals to aid recovery, and close contacts, whether they have symptoms or not, are given antivirals prophylactically to reduce their chance of developing the disease and spreading it further. That strategy has been adopted because there is good scientific evidence that, in the early stages, it will stop some outbreaks and delay for as long as possible the establishment of an epidemic.
	However, through that approach, we can hope only to delay a more widespread outbreak; we cannot stop it altogether. Once the virus becomes more established, providing antivirals prophylactically will be a less effective strategy. People who take antivirals who are not ill, and then cease taking them, could still contract the disease, and we would risk depleting our precious antiviral stockpile. There is also some evidence to show that widespread use of antivirals may drive the development of a resistant strain of the virus, making our major weapon in the fight against the disease less effective.
	We will therefore need to consider moving beyond the current strategy of containment, in which antivirals are provided to all contacts, to a strategy of mitigation. At that point, we will need to take a view on how best to use our stock of antivirals to treat and limit the spread of illness. However, we would consider such a measure only if there is clear evidence of sustained transmission within communities and on the advice of the scientific advisory group on emergencies and the Health Protection Agency. I expect to be able to report to Parliament if and when such a change of approach becomes necessary.
	Scientists are now much closer to developing a vaccine strain from the virus. Although the first strain of the vaccine may be ready in a matter of weeks, developing it into an useable vaccine will take several months. The UK Government and the devolved Administrations already have agreements in place with manufacturers to supply stocks of a vaccine as soon after production begins as possible. In the meantime, we will continue to get expert advice on the most effective vaccine strategy, and what would best protect us if the virus returned in a more virulent form in the autumn. We also need to assess the effects on the availability of the seasonal flu vaccine this winter.
	To make sure that we can distribute antivirals effectively, we are working to get the flu line up and running as quickly as possible, and it will be ready by the autumn. In the meantime, we are finalising plans for an alternative system, which we aim to use in the short term, should the virus become more widespread more quickly.
	The interim arrangements that we are putting in place mean that people with symptoms can be assessed quickly, and antivirals made available so that they can start treatment within 48 hours of symptoms developing, without having to leave their home. We will co-ordinate local arrangements with primary care trusts for assessment and collection, web access and also the potential for phone services. It is critical that any system is robust and as thoroughly tested as possible before it is made operational.
	Prescription-only medicines such as Tamiflu can currently be supplied to a patient only by a doctor or other qualified prescriber. In the community, they can be prescribed to patients only from registered pharmacies. That is enshrined in statute. Statutory instruments will be laid in the House this afternoon to enable us to make the necessary legal changes to support any interim arrangements so that people can access antiviral drugs quickly, should they need them.
	Even with the best available scientific evidence at our disposal, it is impossible at this stage to give a cast-iron prediction of how the virus might develop over the coming months. However, with the preparations we have made, the hard work of our exceptional scientists, and, above all, the dedication and commitment of NHS staff, I can reassure the House that we are doing everything possible to protect our citizens against any eventuality that might emerge in the coming months.

Stephen O'Brien: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. The House will be grateful to him for the further update.
	As we discussed last week, there were grounds for optimism, which appear to have been justified. The severity and spread of the virus are much less than we might have feared. It is therefore a good moment to express our appreciation of the work of NHS staff, and staff in the Health Protection Agency, the pathology services and the Department on achieving such containment. We do, of course, still have a long way to go, and step one is to increase our knowledge of this virus and its clinical impact on those affected. Including Mexico, the case fatality rate is below 0.2 per cent., so this is broadly equivalent to a seasonal flu. However, the hospitalisation rate in the US is about 8 per cent., which is at least twice what we might have expected, although more precautionary measures are being taken at this stage.
	As the House will know, the flu virus is capable of rapid mutation, and past experience has seen flu come in a number of waves with the later ones having significantly different clinical attack and fatality rates. We therefore support an aggressive containment strategy while we gather information and analysis on the virus. Subject to that, it may be desirable to maintain counter-measures to delay the spread while the vaccine is developed. Alternatively, it may be that our response should be more in proportion with that to a seasonal flu epidemic. A judgment to be made—not yet, but in the coming weeks—will be whether to continue with the production of a seasonal flu vaccine or to shift production capacity to a pandemic flu vaccine, at the risk of leaving us overexposed to seasonal flu as we enter the next winter. Will the Secretary of State undertake to include those issues for debate in the House next Thursday, once further analysis of the virus is available?
	Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government's approach is to close schools where a case is confirmed in order to stop the spread of the virus? The Centers for Disease Control in America has changed its guidance from advising closure to a policy of keeping symptomatic students and staff out of school while they are ill and recovering. That is based on the evidence that the virus is circulating widely in the US, whereas that is not the case in the UK. It is debatable whether isolating symptomatic students and staff is as effective as closure, as a combination of household prophylaxis and school closures appears to reduce significantly the spread of the virus. However, if the virus is mild and the impact of school closures is significant, not least during this exam period, it may be better to follow the US line.
	Given that some schools in the UK—the five named schools that the Secretary of State mentioned—are closing and others are simply restricting year groups coming into school, can he clarify whose advice schools should follow? If schools do close, should that be for one week, which is the period adopted in the UK generally by the five schools affected so far, or for two weeks, which is the time scale advised in the US? Alternatively, should schools close for three weeks, which is the period denoted in the strategy, or 10 days, which is what is indicated for a virus such as this, whose characteristics—the ones known so far—are a 48-hour incubation period followed by an infectious stage of two to three days? Can the Secretary of State outline in what circumstances the school exam timetables and arrangements would need to be changed? Would it be fair, either to pupils forced to stay at home or to those still attending school, to use coursework in place of an exam in order to test and grade students—reports have suggested such an approach—rather than use, for instance, the retake system?
	As regards other preparations, beyond bringing forward the distribution of the phase 6 information leaflets to UK households, TV and radio advertisements, and regional and local authority civil contingency preparations—I had a very constructive meeting with the leader and the chief executive of Cheshire East council on Friday, which confirmed their preparedness—I am glad to note that the Government have ordered extra antivirals, face masks and antibiotics, as we have asked them to do repeatedly over the past four years. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the use of Tamiflu for NHS workers and, equally crucially, for those working in the social care services—I noted that he mentioned only NHS staff in his statement, whereas in response to a question following his previous statement he said that this did extend to social care workers too, so I hope that he will be able to reconfirm that today—will occur only if people in these front-line jobs are symptomatic?
	As the Secretary of State knows, I first asked a written parliamentary question about the important subject of the national flu line as far back as November 2008, in order to ascertain the Government's preparedness for a pandemic. In the light of the answers from the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo) last year, which revealed and admitted to the delay from last autumn to early this year and now until autumn this year, can he explain why the contract was held up for some months last year by the Office of Government Commerce and the Treasury? Can he also explain why the Department told the Select Committee in the Lords just in March that the national flu line would be available in May, when in fact it will now not be effective until the autumn?
	Will the Secretary of State explain how NHS Direct will be able to scale up, to be the means through which symptomatic patients can access antivirals within hours? The plans would call for the national pandemic flu line to be brought into operation at World Health Organisation phase 6. Is that still the Government's intention? If so, how many of the planned 7,500 call centre seats will actually be available?
	We have been receiving reports that there is a degree of confusion both among general practitioners and among pharmacists: when a GP gives a prescription for Tamiflu, pharmacists are not in a position to fulfil the prescription, as the Tamiflu is held effectively by the health protection unit. The confusion lies in the protocols, so who is to advise and authorise the administration of Tamiflu locally? I noted something additional in the Secretary of State's statement that was not in the bit faxed to me earlier: he added that with doctors only prescribing and pharmacists only dispensing, he will be laying statutory instruments before Parliament to ensure that the necessary legal changes can be made. That may be a partial answer to my question about authorisation, which is now on the minds of many GPs and pharmacists.
	Finally, can the Secretary of State reassure us on our concern about the potential deep disparity between the resources available to respond in the US and Europe, and the impact on populations in the least developed countries. Flu is a dangerous enemy and we must be vigilant, as even this virus, in the absence of antiviral drugs in many countries, may prove very damaging. What further steps will our Government therefore consider to offer assistance through the WHO to combat the spread to the most vulnerable populations across the globe?

Alan Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those points for clarification, and I confirm my understanding that a debate will take place in this House on 14 May, when we will consider all these issues. By then, I hope we will be in a much better position on the science to answer some of the questions that at the moment are just imponderables.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about school closures. Our policy remains that the Health Protection Agency and the health protection unit in the area should be the authoritative voice on whether or not a school needs to close. In one case, they decided that because the child, who was symptomatic, did not develop those symptoms at the school but did so when they were away from school, the school should remain open. They have taken different approaches in respect of other schools, but the length of time has always been the same—seven days. Paignton community and sports college is on two sites, so they kept one part of the school open. The decision depends on whether the pupils who have the symptoms have mixed in the same eating area as other pupils and whether they have the same restaurant facilities as other pupils—a number of measures need to be taken into account. At Alleyn's school, the pupils are all in one building and there is no separation between the different annexes of the school. The decision needs to be taken by the HPA, in conjunction with the local education authority and the school, based on the circumstances.
	The HPA's advice is that this virus has an incubation period of seven days and that has therefore driven our approach on seven days. There is some evidence from the WHO that the period may be less than that, but that is where the seven days approach comes from. It is kept under review, and if at the end of that seven days the HPA decides that it can keep a school open for longer, it does so.
	On the question of exams, which is tremendously worrying for pupils and parents, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement that Ofqual made on 1 May and the subsequent information that came from the Department for Children, Schools and Families. There has been a practised approach to this—most recently, it was used successfully in my constituency after the floods in Hull to deal with the problems—so it is not as if we are in uncharted territory. However, it is important that the information reaches parents and pupils as quickly as possible.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the flu line and said that for the past four years he had asked for face masks and so on to be ordered. This is not the place or the time for political point scoring, although doubtless there will be a look back at what has taken place. I ask him and other hon. Members to recognise that we are well prepared, but that when we take the decision, as we have done in the framework, to order face masks, to increase the stock of antivirals and of antibiotics, we then need to go through the process of an outline business case, a full business case and proper procurement. In the case of flu line, the problem has been that this is a completely untested revolutionary system, and we have had our problems in the past with revolutionary IT systems that have not been tested and probed sufficiently.
	I can think of no worse occasion than a pandemic for us to put all our eggs in one basket and then to fail, so a perhaps more cautious approach has been taken than in other areas of new technology. We signed the contract with BT in December 2008 and it will be ready in October, having been fully tested. We are not willing to take the risk of running the system any earlier in those circumstances. My noble Friend Lord Carter, the Minister responsible for telecommunications, has done a tremendous job in bringing together the current interim measure, which I shall say more about at the right time.
	NHS Direct can double its capacity within 10 minutes. It is an amazing organisation, as the Prime Minister and I saw last Friday, and it is working extremely efficiently in the current circumstances. However, the interim arrangements—the pre-flu line arrangements, which I hope to say more about in next week's debate—will not rely just on NHS Direct, because it deals with all the other things that happen, such as people ringing about heart attacks and so on. We are not using up all of NHS Direct's capacity, but it will play a part, as I hope to explain next week.
	As for the statutory instrument, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I realised after we had sent a statement across to him that we were due to lay statutory instruments this afternoon, to ensure other channels of distribution. It would have been quite wrong of me not to mention that to the House in this statement, so I added it at the last moment.
	Finally, the international position is of course important. The World Health Organisation is co-ordinating help for less advantaged and poorer countries, so that they can have access to protection. I know that France has sent a supply of antivirals, and we have given money to the same extent—we have not put medicines in, but we have given £4 million to the World Health Organisation pandemic emergency fund through the Department for International Development. We have also given an amount to the UN contingency fund, which may or may not be necessary. We remain fully alert to the dangers, as the House would want us to be, and we are ready to help other countries. Thankfully, the problem has so far not spread to sub-Saharan Africa, but if it does, we need to be ready to counter it there, too.

Nia Griffith: In talking to people about how we can prevent the spread of infection, I have been surprised to find out how few people know that a sneeze can be prevented by licking the roof of the mouth. Putting the tongue firmly against the top of the mouth can stop a sneeze coming out or at least stave it off long enough to get a handkerchief out. Will my right hon. Friend consider including that idea in advice to people about how to prevent the spread of infection?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend helpfully passed me a note about that after the statement last week, which I passed on to the clinicians. I had never heard of it before. All I can say is that I have road-tested it, as has the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), and it does not work, so perhaps we need some instruction from my hon. Friend.

Norman Lamb: I join others in thanking the Secretary of State for early sight of the statement. I also thank him and the chief medical officer for the briefings that they have conducted away from the Chamber and join others in thanking staff across the NHS for their hard work in preparing for the potential pandemic.
	There were reports last weekend of concerns contained in a Department of Health document about capacity that hospitals, including intensive care units, could be overwhelmed. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of current capacity, particularly in parts of the country where hospitals are operating at close to capacity, if not full capacity, and what are the potential risks?
	There is reference in the same document to the potential for 10 times as many people requiring ventilators than the NHS can supply, owing to complications such as pneumonia. What plans, if any, does the Secretary of State have to increase the supply of ventilators? There have also been reports of GPs struggling to get access to swabs. Can he provide an update on that?
	As for the use of antivirals prophylactically, the Secretary of State mentioned the potential for a change of strategy. It will obviously be difficult to persuade people who are potentially affected of the case for a change. Is that dealt with in the planning document? How will the judgment be made and how will it be communicated to people who will obviously be suffering considerable anxiety?
	What assessment has the Secretary of State made of local preparedness around the country? There have been reports of PCT board minutes showing quite a variable picture around the country. Would he be prepared to publish every PCT's assessment of its current preparedness?
	I note what the Secretary of State said about the flu line business case, but it took the Treasury 32 weeks to approve it. Does he share the frustration that was felt by NHS Direct at board level at how long that took? What pressure was his Department putting on the Treasury to speed things up? The statement refers to the fact that we now need to make alternative plans because the flu line is not ready. How much will those alternative plans cost? Surely that cost and inconvenience has been caused by inertia in the Treasury.
	Finally, concerns have been expressed about action at EU level. There are reports that EU Health Ministers failed to reach agreement on the right strategy for travel bans and on plans for a European drug bank for flu remedies and vaccines. Can the Secretary of State update the House on the current position? Is he satisfied that the Council of Ministers is getting its act together and that there is a coherent action plan across the whole EU?

Alan Johnson: On capacity in hospitals, we are sure that the plans are in place to deal with that. We are a long way from that stage yet, which will mean dealing with complications when we have a full-blown pandemic, which is the same reason why we need the antibiotics. In those circumstances, hospitals would delay non-essential operations and change their whole mode of operation to concentrate on that priority.
	Compared with 1969 and 1957, fewer beds are available in hospitals. In 1950, the average stay in hospital was 45 weeks; now it is 4.5 weeks, so we do not need the number of hospital beds that we had then. However, I am assured that we have the capacity in beds and, in particular, intensive care beds out there to deal with the problem, and the same goes for ventilators.
	With swabs, however, there was a problem. We are talking about one of those issues where we can have the best framework in place and everything can be set at the national level, but then we find glitches in the system. The British Medical Association was very helpful to us on that, as were others, and we have resolved the problem, which was one of the reasons why Ian Dalton has been appointed. I do not like the title that some of the newspapers have given him, but we need to bring him down from the north-east to look at the role of co-ordinating all the different systems. That was something that we planned to do later in the national framework, but which we are doing immediately.
	An important point that the hon. Gentleman raised is how we explain moving from containment to mitigation. That is partly why I mentioned the issue today—to get us thinking about it, as it will certainly be an important element of the public health messages that we give people. I think that the public will understand that, whereas we can currently give this precious resource, Tamiflu, when people do not have symptoms and may not even develop them, when the problem becomes much more widespread, the help will still be available. We would still use household prophylaxis and post-exposure prophylaxis for NHS workers, but we would need to ensure that we got that to people within 48 hours, which is the essential time scale, only if they were symptomatic. That is the best way to use that resource. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to explain the trigger points that move us from containment to mitigation, although I am sure that we will explore that much more in next week's debate.
	I am not going to go through every cut and thrust of our discussions with the Treasury, but it has an important job to do. The Treasury needs to be absolutely sure that we are spending taxpayers' money on the right thing—that is, on something that will do what it is supposed to do and work properly—and it put us through a rigorous process. I think that Her Majesty's Treasury would do that under any Government; it is right that it should do so. This was a huge expenditure, and I have no complaints about that—no complaints that I am willing to mention publicly, anyway.
	On the issue of action at the European Union, it is not the case that the EU failed to agree. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South, was there taking a prominent role, and there was agreement after what I am told was a pretty amicable meeting. There was no move away from the importance of the EU acting within the World Health Organisation's international co-ordination role, which it does very well—without removing the oversight that each member state must have for its own arrangements, of course. Reports of rows were greatly exaggerated.

John Battle: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I thank him and his colleagues for the calm and collected manner in which they, the Department and the PCTs have responded to this crisis. Some commentators have suggested that action to search for vaccines will jeopardise the provision of the flu vaccine in the winter. Will my right hon. Friend reassure pensioners, in particular, that the traditional flu vaccine will still be available to them in the winter months, when it is needed?

Alan Johnson: That is our objective. Our objective is to use our sleeping contracts to get the vaccine for this particular virus in place without damaging the capacity for producing the seasonal flu vaccine. It is a difficult situation out there, because countries all around the world—particularly America—are trying to get protection for their own people as well, and there is only so much capacity in the system. But that is our objective, and I hope to be able to reassure the House on that, or at least explain why I cannot reassure the House on it, as developments move on.

Nigel Evans: It is right that we should not be complacent about what we are facing, as this flu virus seems able to mutate very quickly. The Secretary of State will have read over the weekend about the appalling incident involving an out-of-hours GP who came into this country. The consequence, sadly, was two deaths. Has the right hon. Gentleman assessed the impact that a pandemic could have on this country? Clearly, we would not be able to access doctors from other countries in such an event, because the pandemic would affect their countries as well. Will he tell us what procedures are being put in place to ensure that proper medical staff will be available in this country to provide the vaccines to patients?

Alan Johnson: We have plans in place, including GPs returning to practise who have retired but who, of course, still have a wealth of knowledge. The important point about planning for the pandemic, however, is that people should go home and stay at home. The whole distribution system is based on people not clogging up their GP's surgery and not calling out their GP to go to them. It is about ensuring that they have someone who we have been calling a flu friend—we might want to change that terminology—who can go and get the antivirals for them and take them to their home. We should never detract from that message. This is not about needing to produce loads more GPs because the GPs' surgeries are being swamped. If that happens, we will have failed in our approach, but we are planning for the kind of complications that the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) mentioned. If we get to the stage at which more serious complications emerge, we have plans to put extra medical staff in place.

George Howarth: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend's Department on the manner in which it has dealt with this worrisome issue so far. I particularly want to thank the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), for giving me notice of a case that was reported in my constituency last Friday. Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that those who might be more vulnerable to a second wave, such as pensioners, the very young and those whose medical condition would make the impact of the flu worse, are under consideration by the Department, and that plans will be brought forward in due course to deal with those particular problems?

Alan Johnson: I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. Of course, at the moment we do not know whom it will hit first. The evidence from Mexico is that the people who were dying were aged between 25 and 50, which is extremely unusual. It is usually the older population and the very young who are the most vulnerable. Until we know the characteristics, we cannot decide that question, but we are certainly thinking ahead to the vaccination programme and about whom we should vaccinate first, because the vaccine is likely to come on line over a period of time. Once we know who the most vulnerable groups are—they could well be the elderly and the very young—we will ensure that they will be first in line to be vaccinated.

Graham Stuart: The Secretary of State has said how important it is to deliver antivirals within the appropriate time window. There is public concern about the delays in the implementation of the flu helpline. Will he tell us what capacity that helpline will have, and what level of epidemic would be required to overwhelm it?

Alan Johnson: We are working on an interim system that would replicate the flu line. There would be one number to ring—although there is apparently a different system for people who are hard of hearing—and one website to contact. An algorithm would then spark off the collection of the antiviral from a distribution point. The system is predicated on perhaps 28 to 30 per cent. of the population having the virus at the height of a pandemic, and on their being able to order their antivirals and to receive them within a maximum of 48 hours, and preferably within 24 hours. That is the system that we are planning. It is not as though we are giving up on the previous scale of ambition and saying that we will have to scale down to something different. We are maintaining that scale of ambition, and we think that we are close to replicating what we would have had with the flu line—without some of the more sophisticated elements, it is true, but still with the same coverage and in the same time scale.

Adrian Bailey: I reiterate the compliments paid to the Department by other Members on how this matter has been handled. I also thank the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), for notification of the case in my constituency yesterday, which seems to have been handled very quickly and effectively by the local PCT. My concern, which I am sure other Members share, is that unnecessary fears are perpetrated by reports of such a case. Will the Minister outline how press relations and publicity are being handled when a case is reported in a constituency such as mine?

Alan Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I think that my Department, and the NHS in particular, have done tremendously well, but this has been a cross-Government approach, and other Departments have been extremely helpful. I mentioned the noble Lord Carter in regard to telecommunications, and I should also mention the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), in relation to transport, as he is sitting beside me, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as well as others. This is a cross-Government effort.
	On the issue of how we publicise this matter, we are careful not to publicise information on a case until the parents and those close to the person have been informed. That is why there is sometimes a delay between people on the ground hearing about a case, as the information spreads through rumours, and our being able to announce it publicly. However, I think that this is the right thing to do. If we get to the next stage and this becomes more widespread, it will obviously be more difficult. At the moment, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South, is seeking to advise Members of Parliament on both sides of the House of any outbreak in their constituency, but that might be difficult to maintain as the system goes ahead. At the moment, however, we are trying to ensure that there is no publicity until the parents have been informed, and we try to inform the local constituency MP before the information is made public as well. We will do our very best to keep to that procedure for as long as possible.

Evan Harris: I should like to ask the Secretary of State about the importance of those making public statements sticking to a clear consensus expert view. One hon. Member has said on her blog, in relation to schools and nurseries closing, that
	"it is madness. The Minister for public health should stop schools from closing. Far better everyone catches the virus now, and builds up their own anti-bodies whilst it's still relatively weak, and presents as nothing worse than a cold."
	She goes on to suggest that children will be better off in the long run if they catch the virus now. She does say:
	"Viruses are much cleverer than we are."
	Apart from the obvious problem of the threat to the immuno-compromised and the frail of the virus becoming widespread, there is also a danger of viral reassortment within the human population if it goes wide. Will the Secretary of State give his view on whether it is wise to put out public statements such as that one?

Alan Johnson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that matter; I did see it. I will give not my view, but that of the experts, including the chief medical officer—it is that such advice is totally irresponsible. We do not yet know enough about this virus; it is novel and we do not know its characteristics or how it mutates. It would be utter madness to tell people that their best bet is to get this virus and build up some immunity. Immunity from what? If it mutates, that will be an immunity from a previous phase. I have discussed this idea—it seems to be a piece of cracker-barrel philosophy that is going around—with all the clinicians and they say, without any hesitation, that it is totally irresponsible. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity to put that on the record.

Kerry McCarthy: I repeat the congratulations to the Department on its handling of this situation. I apologise in advance for asking a slightly obscure question, but I understand that the vaccine that is being worked on involves the use of eggshells, as does the current flu vaccine. That means that it is not suitable for people who are allergic to eggs. Some people are so allergic to eggs that they cannot even touch the outside of the shell without breaking out in a reaction. Is there any way of getting around this problem so that we can develop a flu vaccine that is suitable for everybody?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend has gone well past the limits of my knowledge on these issues. She is quite right that eggs are used to grow the vaccine— [Interruption.] "Eggs are eggs" as has been said. I have not heard the issue concerning people who are allergic to eggs; I will look into it and perhaps write to her separately.

Roger Williams: It appears that this particular virus at this particular time is producing relatively mild symptoms, but the Secretary of State is right to say that it could easily mutate. What we do not know is where and when it might mutate. I am sure that the WHO has a worldwide observatory for the influenza virus and that it takes samples continuously to try to identify any new variety that might emerge. In less developed countries, however, it probably does not have facilities for taking the samples, getting them to the laboratory and carrying out the tests. Will the UK put more resources into that vital work, because identifying any new mutation and getting a vaccine ready for it will be absolutely essential to containing what could become a much more serious disease?

Alan Johnson: Yes, the WHO has the necessary focus on this. One of the first statements made by Margaret Chan was that the WHO's major role was ensuring that once the vaccine was produced, we could get it to countries that do not have the resources that we have. That will be an important element of what happens. On the general point about the vaccine, both in this country and in America, GlaxoSmithKline and Baxter are working very hard. They have already identified a strain here, and we are well on the way to getting the vaccine, but as the hon. Gentleman and all Members know, getting it through the manufacturing stage and getting it delivered involves months rather than weeks. The vaccine will not come quickly, but when it becomes available, the WHO has plans in place to ensure that it is distributed around the world. There is nothing worse for developed countries than to resolve this pandemic among themselves, only to find that it is still prevalent elsewhere—and therefore still an international threat.

Andrew MacKinlay: I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on his stewardship of this matter. I hesitated before getting up to speak, but one thing troubles me—patient confidentiality, which it seems to me has been breached. Once the storm broke, people had their photographs put in the newspapers. Vulnerable people facing a time of great crisis were harassed by journalists to produce photos, or their loved ones were asked, and so forth. Such people need some protection, and surely NHS staff need to be reminded of the law under the Data Protection Act 1998. Will the Department take these matters up with the Press Complaints Commission and with editors to ask for some restraint, as it is grossly unfair and deeply harrowing for people to have their medical conditions put on to the front pages of newspapers?

Alan Johnson: On the whole, as I said in my statement, media coverage has been responsible, but I agree that some individual cases are worrying. I have heard about instances in Dulwich, for example, of a stigma being attached to children who have this illness, leading to problems with bullying. That is very worrying. Parents have contacted us about the issue. I will try to ensure that the press plays its role in dealing with this problem and that the responsibility that it has shown in general at the macro-level is repeated at the micro-level.

Point of Order

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the umpteenth time today, we have seen contempt shown for Mr. Speaker and the occupants the Chair by the Government, who have defied Mr. Speaker's repeated requests that statements should be made to this House first, before they are made to the world outside. The SATs statement was rehearsed on the radio this morning and the written statement to the House on DNA was all over the newspapers and in the media late last night. What is the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of Mr. Speaker making rulings unless they can be enforced?
	May I make a modest suggestion to Mr. Speaker: if, in future, there are Ministers—I am pleased to see the Home Secretary in her place on the Front Bench—who defy Mr. Speaker's rulings, they should be arrested and have their DNA taken from them, and that that DNA sample should be destroyed only when we have received a proper undertaking and public apology from the Minister responsible?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I say to the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Speaker does indeed feel very strongly that, before statements to this House are disclosed or discussed elsewhere, they should be made to this House. I am sure that Mr. Speaker will take note of the hon. Gentleman's points, but as to whether he will follow up the hon. Gentleman's suggestions, I cannot be quite so certain.

Intelligence and Security Committee

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That this House has considered the matter of the Annual Report of the Intelligence and Security Committee for 2007-08, Cm 7542, and the Government's response, Cm 7543.—( Mark Tami.)

Kim Howells: I have had the privilege of chairing the Intelligence and Security Committee since October last year and this is the first opportunity I have had to talk about the work of the Committee before the House. I believe that this is the first time that such a debate has been opened by the Committee Chairman.
	I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to offer his apologies for being unable to attend this debate. He is representing the Prime Minister at the Eastern Partnership summit in Prague. While we wish the Foreign Secretary well at that conference, I am sure that all present are delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary participating in today's debate.
	On behalf of the Committee, I wish to put on record our thanks to my predecessors: my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who was Chairman until January 2008 and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), who was Chairman until October 2008. I am grateful to them for their excellent leadership.
	In the period covered by the annual report, the Committee held 26 formal meetings and 25 other meetings—51 in total—and undertook a number of visits. Its members attended the vast majority of those meetings—well over 90 per cent.—so I want to thank them for their hard work and the constructive approach they brought to the Committee's work. I have certainly never served on any other Committee where attendance has been so high or its members have been so expert—an issue to which I shall return.
	The Intelligence and Security Committee has a statutory remit to examine the administration, policy and finance of the UK's security and intelligence agencies. We report on these annually to the Prime Minister and meet him to discuss the details of the report. The report covers the period from December 2007 to November 2008. That is the period that we are looking at today.
	Our most time-consuming task during that period was the completion of our review of the intelligence on the London terrorist attacks of 7 July 2005. That was the subject of a separate, detailed report, which was sent to the Prime Minister in July 2008. It could not be published then for legal reasons. A trial going on at the time has now concluded, and reporting restrictions have been lifted. To reflect recent developments, the Committee has updated the report—not in a rewrite, as some have suggested, but in a separate, additional annexe. We sent that update to the Prime Minister yesterday, and I am informed that he will publish both the report and update on Tuesday 19 May. I will not comment further on the report during this debate.
	As the annual report makes clear on page 44, during 2008, the Committee also began investigations into a number of other areas—investigations that were continuing when the annual report was published. Some of the investigations have now concluded, and we will report on them in our next annual report. Properly, the annual report deals mainly with the nuts and bolts of the agencies' operations: their administration, policy and finance. I will provide an overview.
	A wide range of threats, both terrorist and non-terrorist, continues to be posed to the United Kingdom.

Tobias Ellwood: I do not wish to distract the right hon. Gentleman, but he draws attention to the report of one of his predecessors, Baroness Taylor. Back in 2002, she wrote that there remained a huge problem in the comparison between the compensation received by people affected by terrorism attacks in the UK, and that received by those affected by such attacks abroad. Sadly, I lost my brother in the Bali bombing, and the report made clear the double standard: families of those killed or injured in the UK were compensated through the criminal injuries compensation scheme, whereas no such support is provided in relation to those killed or injured abroad. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether too much time has passed—seven years—for that discrepancy to continue?

Kim Howells: Every time I think of the hon. Gentleman, I think of his brother, who was so cruelly taken from his family by the terrible bombing in Bali. It is not the Committee's place to comment on compensation, but I assure him that a great many of us think about the subject, and I would like to see some of the unjustified disparities reduced.
	The current threat from international terrorism is assessed as severe: there is a continuing high level of threat to the United Kingdom, and a high likelihood of a terrorist attack in this country. The threat of international terrorism comes from a diverse range of sources, including al-Qaeda and its associated networks, and those who share its ideology but do not have direct contact with it. Al-Qaeda and its followers are certainly not short of ambition. We have ample evidence of their willingness to carry out indiscriminate terrorist attacks, and the threat that they pose is likely to persist for a considerable time. That places great pressure on our intelligence and security agencies, together with the police, Government Departments and other key partners, all of whom are working to find those who are planning attacks and prevent them from carrying them out.
	Counter-terrorism work is demanding and often dangerous for those involved. It is no exaggeration to say that they put their lives at risk to protect this country. They have achieved notable successes over the past year, with plots disrupted and individuals brought to trial and convicted. I record our thanks to them for all their hard work—not only the successes that are known about, but those that cannot be publicised. All three agencies, especially the Security Service, have continued to receive substantially increased resources earmarked for counter-terrorism work. Discovering plots and pursuing terrorists is vital, but the Security Service cannot guarantee to stop every plot; it is often playing catch-up.
	Although the primary focus of the United Kingdom's intelligence and security agencies is necessarily on counter-terrorism work, a good deal of which has international links, they also dedicate resources to countering threats posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional instability, espionage, cyber attack and other challenges. In addition, the agencies continue to provide unprecedented operational support to United Kingdom military operations.

Andrew MacKinlay: I pored over my right hon. Friend's report, and it contains no mention of cyber attacks, or what is known in the firm as "patriotic hacking". That is among the most serious threats to the United Kingdom and the west. Why is there no mention of this? Has the Committee not examined the threat? Why is it not being reported to the House?

Kim Howells: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the gravity of the threat of cyber attack— [Interruption.] If he will contain himself for a moment and not explode on his bit of the Front Bench, I will tell him that we will report on cyber attack in our next annual report. I am sure he will be satisfied with that.
	The Committee expressed concern that the necessary focus on counter-terrorism work has resulted in a reduction in the proportion of effort directed to non-counter-terrorism threats, possibly to our future detriment. In the Government's response to the Committee, they acknowledged that the proportion of work on other intelligence and security requirements has been reduced as a result of the continuing focus on counter-terrorism. The Government state that the agencies are nevertheless investing considerably in better IT and other capabilities, but it remains a source of great concern to the Committee that we might be storing up problems for the future if we neglect other areas of work, and we are adamant that more must be done.
	In addition to examining work on counter-terrorism and on non-counter-terrorism threats, the report looks at administrative challenges: how agencies allocate resources; and how we can ensure that they provide value for money, and have effective business continuity plans and effective security procedures such as vetting. Although the Committee's remit covers the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ, it is clear that it cannot work in isolation. Given the challenges it faces, constructing close partnerships with the wider intelligence community is essential.
	In overseeing such agencies, the Committee must also examine the work of the wider intelligence community. In addition, as the only parliamentary body allowed, by virtue of the Official Secrets Act, to access secret material, it is the only body that can hold the agencies and bodies dealing with such material to account: they include the Defence Intelligence Staff, some areas within the Office for Security and Counter- Terrorism in the Home Office, the intelligence structure in the Cabinet Office including the Joint Intelligence Committee and the assessments staff, the joint terrorism analysis centre and the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure.
	The Committee also addresses issues that affect the intelligence community as a whole. For example, we have expressed our dismay—the word is used carefully—that phase 2 of the SCOPE IT system has been scrapped. I assure the House that the ISC takes its job of holding the agencies to account very seriously. If we cannot always provide the detail of that in public, that does not mean it is not being done. The ISC remains completely objective in its deliberations on the issues and cases it chooses to examine. That is the only way members of the Committee know how to win and retain the trust of Parliament, the security agencies and the wider world.

Fiona Mactaggart: My right hon. Friend talks about the importance of the Committee gaining the trust of the wider world. As he points out, the Committee is the only mechanism that Parliament has to hold the security agencies to account. There is widespread anxiety among the public that information obtained by UK security services has been used by other countries in committing torture against espionage suspects. Will he report to Parliament his Committee's view of such allegations?

Kim Howells: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I shall deal with her point in a moment, if she will be patient.
	It is important to note that the membership of the Committee reflects the full range of attitudes taken by most people who think about intelligence and security matters. The Committee's members bring to its deliberations something additional and, in my view, something special. All of them are experienced, long-serving and well-respected Members of this House and the other place. Often, but not always, they have served as Ministers or shadow Ministers. Sometimes, but not always, they have served in Departments or on Committees that gave them first-hand experience of intelligence, security, defence and policing matters. Without exception, they bring with them the benefit of diverse experiences as parliamentarians, and, of course, as individuals who had important careers before entering either House.

David Winnick: I do not intend this to reflect in any way on the Committee's present or previous membership, but will my right hon. Friend comment on the Prime Minister's statement of 19 March 2008? In that statement, the Prime Minister spoke of a more "public role" for the Committee, and said that such a role should be
	"more akin to the practice of Select Committees".—[ Official Report, 19 March 2008; Vol. 473, c. 926.]
	While I realise that, as in the case of any democratic country, the bulk of the Committee's work will be done in private, has not the time come—as the Prime Minister has himself suggested—for some public hearings about the work of the security agencies?

Kim Howells: Yes, and I can tell my hon. Friend that the Committee is thinking very seriously about how we can conduct such public sessions. It will not be easy. If we ask questions about operations or intelligence which, by their very nature, are secret and must remain secret, we shall certainly not be able to do so in public, and if we ask questions that do not relate to such matters and that can be asked by any Select Committee, we shall be accused of asking whoever is before us patsy questions. However, there are subjects involving the intelligence and security agencies that we may be able to employ in order to hold public hearings that will be useful and meaningful, rather than serving merely as decoration.

Andrew MacKinlay: rose—

Kim Howells: I will not give way again, because I know that many right hon. and hon. Members are waiting to speak.
	In referring to the Committee's membership, I have given some of the reasons for the fact that it is the least leaky Committee, and the least prone to allowing party politics to colour the commentary on its reports and its albeit rare public pronouncements. I hope that I shall be allowed to depart for a moment from what has been protocol in the introduction of debates such as this. The material handled by the Committee is extraordinarily sensitive, and very important to the country's security. Three members of the Committee are not privy councillors, but ought to be because of the distinguished way in which they have served it. I refer to my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) and for Wirral, South (Ben Chapman) and the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway). I hope that the Prime Minister will consider that carefully, because it is something of an anomaly and I think it should be rectified.
	The ISC has constantly to win and retain the trust of all sides in an area which, by its very nature, is prone to the most extreme forms of public speculation and concern, rumour, criticism, paranoia and conspiracy theories. It has to work within the circle of secrecy— [Interruption.] Will my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) allow me to finish? It has to work within the circle of secrecy, and yet convince the Prime Minister, Parliament and the public that the often clandestine systems, behaviour and operations that are important elements of the business of the agencies that we examine are organised and undertaken according to the laws laid down in this country. That applies to operations regardless of where in the world they are conducted.
	There are additional difficulties. There is a tendency for some of those who are most often heard giving voice to the speculation, concern, rumour, paranoia and conspiracy theories that I mentioned a moment ago to assume that the ISC is there simply to prove them right—or, if we decline to do that in our reports—to whitewash the agencies and the Government. Let me state here and now that, as one who served as a Minister for more than 11 years and served nearly six years on the Opposition Front Bench—as well as on three Select Committees, including a particularly fearsome Public Accounts Committee—I have never encountered a more rigorous, tough and independently minded investigative Committee than the ISC.
	Like any other organisation, the ISC has its weaknesses and limitations, not least the fact that it is under-resourced. It is served by a superb, hard-working secretariat, but one that is small in numbers and frequently tested to the limit in undertaking its duties. The ISC needs more money and staff, especially if it is to continue to undertake additional investigations of difficult and complex issues such as the London bombings of July 2005.
	There is, of course, a body that exists to undertake investigations of individual cases. It is called the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, and consists of very senior members of the legal profession who are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen. It is guided by Lord Justice Mummery, its president. I hope very much that it will make its distinguished membership and its remit better known to the media and the public than they appear to be at present.
	The Investigatory Powers Tribunal will proceed with its vital work, but I have no doubt that pressure will continue to be applied to the Intelligence and Security Committee to undertake investigations of all manner of contentious issues, including the role and conduct of serving officers of our intelligence and security services in interrogating suspects and prisoners held overseas. That brings me to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart).
	Over the past five years, as well as its annual reports, the Committee has produced a report on rendition, published in July 2007, a report on the London terror attacks of July 2005, published in May 2006, and a report on the handling of detainees by UK intelligence personnel in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and Iraq, published in March 2005. As I said earlier, its second report on the July 2005 London bombings will be published on 19 May. If it is to continue to do justice to difficult and complex subjects of that kind, as well as fulfilling its remit to monitor the intelligence and security agencies, it needs adequate resources. I urge No. 10 to consider that plea carefully and sympathetically.
	Inevitably, the Committee's agenda beyond its formal remit will continue to be influenced by events, reports and wider debates about intelligence and security issues. There will be themes that demand its attention. Let me briefly touch on one of those themes. It concerns issues that have arisen, for example, as a consequence of the allegations made by an individual who was not a British national, but who resided in this country for some time. Claims have been made that that individual was arrested in Pakistan and questioned by the Pakistani authorities and by the Americans before eventually being incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay. Subsequently, the individual was released back to the United Kingdom without being formally charged by the Americans with having committed a terrorist offence.
	The individual's lawyers allege that, before being flown to Guantanamo, the person was treated very badly by his captors, and that British intelligence was aware, at the very least, of aspects of that treatment. It is alleged that the individual was subjected to interrogation techniques that were contrary to the Geneva conventions and to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It is also alleged that the individual was subject to extraordinary rendition to a third country where torture allegedly occurred and where questions were put to the individual—questions which, allegedly, could only have come from the United Kingdom.
	Those allegations have been the subject of rigorous and dispassionate examination by the ISC, and I do not intend to comment on them here in any way. What I want to do, very briefly, is draw attention to a fact that will, I am sure, be obvious to any serious and objective student of intelligence and security matters. It is this: the possible ramifications of recent cases, such as the one I have just described, on the future operational capabilities of our intelligence and security agencies could be very significant.
	Paradoxical as it may seem in a world normally described by the likes of John le Carré and many other authors and filmmakers as one mired in betrayal and duplicity, in fact a high degree of mutual trust is required for intelligence services to be sufficiently confident to exchange their information across international frontiers. Where there is no trust, there will be little useful exchange of intelligence. Some of that intelligence—in the past, now and in the future—will have been gathered in the streets, police stations, prisons and holding camps of countries and conflict zones where Governments and regimes do not normally enjoy reputations as firm upholders of the Geneva conventions.
	If our security agencies are informed by one of the security agencies of these countries that they have in their custody a detainee, or that they have information obtained from a detainee that could be crucial to protecting British people from a terrorist atrocity, what are they to do? Do they despatch officers to these places, knowing that subsequently they might find themselves subject back in the United Kingdom to a charge of being complicit in the serious maltreatment of the detainee? How ready will our agencies be to deploy officers to countries whose Governments are implicated in human rights abuses and torture, or even to admit that they have co-operated with the intelligence agencies of those Governments, given that there can be very few countries in the world that are able to offer cast-iron guarantees that terrorist suspects, detainees and criminals are protected from mistreatment of any kind as they are protected by our laws in the United Kingdom?
	Should British agencies co-operate with countries that have been found guilty of breaking international conventions against torture? It might be instructive, before replying to that, to recall that Sweden, a nation justifiably well regarded for its human rights record, was found guilty of violating the international convention against torture in 2001 after extraditing to Egypt a terror suspect, Ahmed Agiza—a former member of Islamic Jihad—having refused to grant the man asylum. The UN Committee against Torture ruled in 2005, less than four years ago, that Sweden should have known that Egypt advocated and consistently practised the widespread use of torture methods against detainees. Can we guarantee that all our NATO partners, including our most important partner, the USA, are completely free of UN criticism? I doubt it.
	The ISC visited Ottawa recently and learned that Canada—another nation properly held up as a paradigm of virtue when it comes to the humane treatment of suspects and detainees—was forced to pay more than 10 million Canadian dollars in 2007 in compensation to a Syrian-born Canadian citizen, Mr. Maher Arar. He had been arrested in the USA on allegedly misleading intelligence supplied by the Canadian security authorities. The Americans in their wisdom flew Mr. Arar to Syria, where he alleges that he was beaten repeatedly and subjected to many months of inhumane prison conditions. Canada is one of our most trusted and steadfast allies. It has a robust judiciary that is every bit as ready as ours to uphold human rights and civil liberties.
	Where do such examples leave us politicians, who are in Parliament to ensure, among other things, that our intelligence and security organisations undertake properly and lawfully the necessary tasks required to keep our streets safe from atrocities perpetrated by terrorists? As Chairman of the ISC, I can guarantee that the Committee will not flinch in our investigations and our reports will properly inform the Prime Minister and, with him, Parliament and the country at large, wherever and whenever we believe that laws have been broken and human rights have been abused. We will help to ensure that the guidance and advice given to our officers meets all our international obligations.
	As Committee members, we are as aware as anyone in this country that those responsible for helping to ensure the safety of our citizens from the activities of those who would perpetrate terrorism and destruction must themselves act within the laws of the United Kingdom. That is how we prove to the rest of the world that the values that we uphold and fight for are civilised and humane. Few things can do this country's reputation more damage than being seen to be abusing human rights and tarnishing the values for which we stand. That was the great harm wreaked by the photographs and reports that emerged from Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, among other places of detention and interrogation.
	I believe that there are no circumstances where torture can be justified; nor am I convinced that the intelligence that emerges from torture cells is sufficiently reliable to warrant even that most equivocal of justifications—the one that says that torture is valid if it tells us how to find or defuse the ubiquitous ticking bomb.
	We know also, however, that in this increasingly mobile world—in which people, plans, weapons, explosives, detonators and intelligence move and are made available with such speed—it is vital that the intelligence and security agencies of this country and those of its civilised and trusted allies are properly empowered to co-operate and exchange intelligence. As long as they do that within the laws laid down to guide their work, they should not have to live with the dread that, by the very act of co-operating with a close ally who may subsequently find themselves mired in a human rights abuse scandal, they might be tarred with the same brush. Living with such a dread is not a recipe for the efficient exercise of intelligence and security operations as central as ours are to preventing terrorist atrocities in this country.
	That is why the work of examining exhaustively the allegations laid against intelligence and security agencies and officers must remain a priority. It is why the examinations should continue to be carried out within a political context that leaves no one in any doubt whatsoever that the United Kingdom Government's current refinement and consolidation of rules and guidance issued to intelligence and security officers will result in the maximum possible clarity. That is vital if we are to dispel all suspicions and allegations that our agencies and, by implication, our Government have been complicit in torture.
	The men and women who work for our intelligence and security agencies are among the brightest and, sometimes, the bravest people that I have ever encountered. Their work is vital to keeping this country safe from the often murderous intentions of those, inside and outside these islands, who wish to harm us. Because of its very nature, much of that work must be secret. Its great worth often cannot be the subject of reporting or celebrating, even in the most broad fashion.

Michael Ancram: I totally support what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. It is very important to stress again that none of us would condone mistreatment and, in particular, torture. Does he agree that in our investigation of that we must respect the rules of confidentiality with other agencies abroad with which we share intelligence? Sharing intelligence is not a contractual matter; it is based entirely on trust. If that trust is either undermined or broken, we will not know that we are not getting the intelligence—because, unless we get it, we do not know what intelligence is available—but that could greatly damage the national security interests of this country.

Kim Howells: I agree with every word of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's analysis. He is absolutely right, and that issue of trust is central to the points I am making.

Fiona Mactaggart: Is our trust in our partner agencies not dependent on them? My right hon. Friend has highlighted a number of Governments who have inadvertently breached the human rights of certain people, but is not our trust in the sharing of information with other countries undermined if they consciously use that information in a way that abuses the human rights of suspects?

Kim Howells: Yes, that is absolutely true, although I do not believe for one minute that any of this is cut and dried and crystal clear, because it never is. There are intelligence agencies across the world that we believe we can trust, but which for whatever reason—my hon. Friend used the term "inadvertently"—have been guilty of contravening some of the Geneva conventions. That has indeed sometimes been inadvertent. I spent a large amount of my time at the Foreign Office helping to negotiate the possible future extradition to their home countries of people who were being held in places such as Belmarsh. We might have been given every possible reassurance that those people would be safe, but our courts frequently did not believe those reassurances, so our attempts to send those people back home to their own countries were often stymied. These are very difficult areas, and there is no rule that says that, because we do something in this country with the best of intentions, it will not be contravened or broken somewhere else in the world.
	I believe that the people who work in our intelligence and security agencies deserve the very best guidance, both political and practical, and that that guidance must be as clear and unambiguous as possible. It is this Parliament, and this Government, who must provide it.

Chris Grayling: May I begin by offering two different sets of thanks? The first is to all the people who work in our security services. I am sure every Member of this House would agree that they do a magnificent job for this country. We depend on them enormously at what is a time of great threat and great difficulty, and it is right and proper that our gratitude should go out to them. My second set of thanks is to the right hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and his colleagues of all political parties who serve on the Intelligence and Security Committee. They too do a very important job of work for us; they carry out a challenging and important role on our behalf. That fact is underlined by the scale of the redacted information in this report. That inevitably makes it difficult for this House to have a full discussion about the scale of our commitment to the security services, so we rely on the ISC to be our eyes and ears in the security world, and I am grateful to the Chairman and his Committee for what they have done. I am sure we would also want to pass on our thanks to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett) for her work on the Committee during the course of the year.
	There is, of course, one element missing from the report. We have an annual report to consider, and we will spend today's discussion focusing on a document that has been thoughtfully put together, but which inevitably lacks some of the detail that might enable our debate to be more informed. Obviously, for security reasons key information cannot be made available to us. We can certainly discuss the role of our security services in the battle against terror, but one issue that I know will be followed from outside this House is the work carried out by the Committee on the London 7/7 bombings, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. We know that the research it conducted and the assessments it made have remained under lock and key because of the trial that has recently concluded. Even given the fact that that trial has now ended, we would all fully accept that the Committee has been given access to some of the most sensitive information in relation to what happened and that it will not be possible to make that information fully public.
	However, I think Members in all parts of the House will be aware that there is an expectation among the families of those who were killed or injured that the report will be published in some form, and I think they will welcome the announcement the right hon. Gentleman has made today. They are certainly hoping that the report will give them some further explanation about what happened, and in particular what was known about the bombers. I have a clear sense from talking to some of those involved that they do not want there to be a blame witch hunt against anyone who may have made mistakes, but they do want clear evidence that lessons have been learned and procedures improved. All of us in this House can understand that desire, and we can only have the greatest admiration for the way in which the surviving victims and their families have dealt with the appalling situation they faced.

Michael Mates: I must be careful about what I say, but I can tell my hon. Friend that we have made huge efforts in this report to cut redactions to a minimum for the express purpose of trying to give as much information as we possibly can to the families and relatives he was talking about.

Chris Grayling: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those comments and I am sure they will be welcomed by the families, who are certainly seeking reassurance that everything possible is being done to ensure that no one has to face a similar tragic situation in the future. There is a duty on us to provide answers for those people as far as we can, with the caveat that we cannot compromise the future ability of the security services to combat the threat we face. I am sure that the families will be reassured by my right hon. Friend's comments, and I am delighted to hear that the Committee will be able to press ahead and publish that report. I hope that it provides the families with some of the answers they seek.

Andrew MacKinlay: Before the hon. Gentleman gets carried away in mutual congratulations between Front Benchers and prospective Privy Counsellors, I draw his attention to page 25 of the report, which states:
	"SIS has now implemented the new civil service retirement age of 65 with the exception of senior staff...where the retirement age remains ***."
	I find it incredible that that detail was of such importance to national security that it had to be left out. That is absurd, and it insults Parliament. I imagine some sort of Miles Malleson or Wilfrid Hyde-White character still in post at 106, and they are too embarrassed to say so. That is the only logical conclusion to draw.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and I was about to mention the scale of redaction. I remember dealing with a constituency case a few years ago in which an experienced counter-terrorism officer was being expected to retire because there was a set retirement age. At a time when we face a significant international threat, it is clearly bonkers to lose expertise unless people really want to retire—

Andrew MacKinlay: How old was this guy?

Chris Grayling: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to ask the Home Secretary or a member of the Committee whether they can give him some hint on that.
	Because of the need to avoid compromising the ability of our security services to defend the safety of our citizens, the detail in the report will always have to be limited, but we need to ask serious questions about the scale of the redactions. It is impossible for Parliament sensibly to debate value for money as most of the figures are replaced with asterisks. On page 13 there is even a footnote for the asterisks that explains helpfully:
	"This relates to GCHQ's various activities ***."
	That is not very helpful or enlightening. On page 9, a whole table is printed showing the overall resource and capital spending projections for the different agencies, but no amounts for each agency. I can see why it is important that information that is a threat to national security is not placed in the public domain, but I wonder whether the degree of redaction in this report allows Parliament to fulfil its role as examiners of the public purse. That is especially true given that the agencies are costing more and more to run.
	For GCHQ, the SIS, the Security Service and what are termed "Additional elements", spending over the five years to 2011 will almost double from £1.2 billion to just over £2 billion. In total, spending on counter-terrorism will increase to £3.5 billion. What was originally a relatively small item of Government expenditure is expanding steadily to the point where it is close to the size of a small Department on its own. Clearly, we should not know or expose the full detail of that expenditure, and we face new challenges—the report rightly points out that the increased use of the internet by terrorists has become a priority for GCHQ, which will create a whole new set of challenges, requirements and investment needs. We accept also that the security services are operating in a difficult environment, but there are legitimate questions to ask about the overall value for money being obtained by them.

David Winnick: Perhaps the Chairman of the Committee believes that I would like to see much of its work done in public, but nothing could be further from the truth. Is it the Opposition's view that there is a public role for the Committee, including justification for some public hearings, to make it—in the words of the Prime Minister—more akin to a Select Committee, while recognising that we face an acute terrorist danger and much of the Committee's work must, by the very nature of such things, be private?

Chris Grayling: We certainly support as much transparency as possible but while still allowing the Committee to work effectively, and in a way that does not compromise our national security and the work of those who are, in very many cases, putting their lives on the line to defend us. It is a delicate balance. I look to the Committee to try to push the margin as far as it reasonably can. It is closest to the information with which we are dealing and involves representatives from both sides of the House. I hope—I suspect that this is the wish of everyone in the House—that we will push the envelope as far as we can to achieve a sensible balance.

Michael Ancram: For four years, I made the same speech as my hon. Friend is making from that Dispatch Box. I too used to run through the redactions and ask how we could possibly do our job in Parliament when we could not see the figures. I have now served on the ISC for three years and have been taken through the reasons for the redactions, and so, without giving anything away, may I say to him that I think they are justified?

Chris Grayling: I accept my right hon. and learned Friend's word in these matters. However, I am sure that he and his colleagues on the Committee will continue to make every effort to bring into the public domain matters that can be brought into it.
	We know that a considerable amount of investment is taking place in IT across the security services, for reasons such as the increased use of the internet to which I have just referred. We also know that the Government have, on occasions, got things spectacularly wrong in IT across all different aspects of the public sector. The report quite rightly raises serious questions about the SCOPE project, which has clearly been another example of an unsuccessful major IT project. It is clear that that is a situation in which it is helpful for the House to hear as much as possible about how the Committee ensures that money is spent wisely and that we genuinely secure value for the investment, as well as what we do when things go badly wrong. I await with the interest the report that the right hon. Member for Pontypridd talked about putting together later in the year.
	Therein lies the rub. I hear what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) says, but people standing at this Dispatch Box—including him and my predecessor, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)—have argued that there is more scope to provide information to support the value for money issues, that not all the information needs to be classified and that we could demonstrate to the House and to taxpayers how we are securing a proper return for the taxpayer in what is inevitably now proving to be a fast-increasing investment for the taxpayer.
	There is a balance to be struck. If we publish breakdowns that are too detailed, it gives those who are hostile to this nation information about where and when budgets are squeezed and about the areas in which we are investing and those in which we are not. Yes, there is a risk that we might give an indication of where the soft underbelly lies. Clearly, we do not want to do that, but I still suspect that more information could be provided without exposing us in that way. Of course, if we understand where there are pressures in the system and where there are financial issues, it makes it easier for right hon. and hon. Members to apply pressure and to ensure that soft underbellies do not appear to the extent that they might otherwise.
	Let me now turn to some of the other detail of the report, which seems to confirm what my colleagues and I have said all along: the Government's national security strategy is in danger of simply being a descriptive laundry list and the Prime Minister's National Security Committee and National Security Forum are in danger of just being talking shops.
	The Committee's report makes it clear that the Government have not taken the recommendations of the Butler report seriously, which could negatively affect the functioning of the central intelligence machinery and our analytical capability. It worryingly calls into question the Government's ability to find a way to allow intercept evidence to be used in terrorist trials—we have argued for that in order to reduce our reliance on the control orders regime. The report also highlights the costly failure of the SCOPE project, as I mentioned earlier, and reinforces our calls for a full, evidence-based review of the Prevent strategy.
	Let me deal with some of the criticisms in turn. First, the Committee placed a question mark over the value of the national security strategy, saying:
	"We have questioned whether the strategy will achieve any benefits in real terms or whether it is simply a paper exercise...The National Security Strategy does not create new areas of responsibility for the Agencies or the wider intelligence community. The Heads of the Agencies have indicated that they were consulted about the strategy and are broadly supportive of it, but that they do not envisage that it will result in any significant change in direction for them."
	Then there is the National Security Forum. The Committee is clearly ambivalent about its role. It states:
	"How the role of the National Security Forum will develop, and what value it will add, remain to be seen."
	Then there is the issue of the Joint Intelligence Committee. The ISC welcomed the separation of the roles of JIC Chairman and Government adviser on intelligence and security matters. However, it said that it was
	"disappointed that the grade of both posts was now lower than it had been when they were combined and effectively the position has reverted to its pre-2005 grade".
	The Committee criticised the decision to subsume the role of the head of professional intelligence analysis within the role of JIC Chairman. It said that, given the importance of that role,
	"we are very concerned by the plan to subsume it within the Joint Intelligence Committee Chairman's post as this may actually lessen the priority given to this crucial role."

Andrew MacKinlay: The hon. Gentleman is referring to paragraphs 134 and 135, which deal with the professional head of intelligence analysis. Paragraph 135 states:
	"We are therefore very concerned that the post remained vacant since Jane Knight (the first post-holder) retired in...2007."
	I found it breathtaking that that was not redacted, for reasons of data protection and also because every spook in London now knows who first held the post of professional head of intelligence analysis. The Committee puts that in, but when I ask for the name of the Clerk of the Committee, the Prime Minister says that I cannot be told—even though the name is in the civil service yearbook. These people are bonkers. Bonkers!

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. We look forward to his speech, if he manages to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The Committee rightly says that it is "appalled" by the decision to scrap phase 2 of the SCOPE system. It says:
	"We sincerely hope that lessons have been learnt from the failure and that they will be used when plans for the future are being drawn up."
	The Government must address that as a matter of urgency because, yet again, a major IT project has gone wrong, this time in a secure environment.
	On intercept evidence, the Committee says:
	"We welcome the fact that the Chilcot conditions meet our concerns that the Agencies' capability must not be damaged should their intercept material be adduced in court. We are concerned, however, as to whether it will be possible to met these conditions."
	I think that there is a clear case for doing everything we can to ensure that intercept evidence can be used in court, when appropriate, especially given the pressures of the control order regime. We may need to re-examine the conditions to see whether they are right for the circumstances. I appreciate that this is a difficult matter, but it is one in which we should aspire to deliver results and make as much information as possible available, where it is possible to do so.
	Finally on the criticisms in the report, the Committee refers to the need to improve understanding of '"the path to extremism"', and it
	"welcomes the establishment of a new team analysing open-source and academic material in this field."
	However, it also raised questions about where that sits within the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, and expressed concern about JTAC's capabilities being diluted by the change. I hope that the Government will look at that very carefully.
	My worry, when I look at the Government's response to the report, is just how limited it is. So many of the responses to the points raised in the report are cursory. Of 17 recommendations, 11 get only a one-line response.
	Of course, there are limitations to how much the Government can say in response to the points raised, but surely their response to point F on flooding could be a little more detailed without sacrificing too many secrets. In point H, the Committee considers how oversight of the agencies' work might be improved, but could the Government not do better than the one-line response that is given? Point N deals with the failings of the SCOPE project: the Government say that they will co-operate with the next report, but could they not say a little more about that?
	On the Committee's final point about intercept evidence, the Government's response reflects the lengthy process that is being undertaken to enable them to make a decision about its use. The matter is, of course, complex, but it is a shame that the Government did not start the process a long time before they did. If they had, we might have reached a resolution by now.
	Briefly, I shall set out for the House some of the areas in which we think improvements need to be made, and where we hope the ISC will apply its efforts to securing improvement. We remain concerned that the "National Security Strategy" is a descriptive document. A proper strategy would set the overall framework and direction for security policy across Government.
	We have argued for a proper national security council, rather than an amalgamation of existing Committees. We think that such a council would provide strategic direction and drive national security policy. We need to look carefully at the role and grading of the JIC chair and the security adviser, who both need to have the requisite authority to carry out their important roles.

Richard Ottaway: While my hon. Friend is on the question of reform, may I invite him to comment on reform of the Intelligence and Security Committee itself? His predecessor but one, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), said that the Committee should be chaired by a member of the Opposition. Is that still our party's position for the future?

Chris Grayling: First and foremost, I should not wish to cast any aspersions on the role of the current Chairman or his work. My hon. Friend makes a strong case, however, and given that there are a number of Committees that are non-partisan, include Members from all parts of the House and seek to do a proper job for the country, there is a case for having an Opposition Member lead them. I have no particular intention of deviating from the views that my predecessors set out; there is a strong case for what my hon. Friend says. In 12 months' time, of course, that view may permit the existing Chairman to carry on in his current role.
	Although I understand the Government's aims for the preventing violent extremism programme, my colleagues and I have significant doubts about the effectiveness of many projects and the mechanisms for distributing and monitoring funding. There needs to be a full, evidence-based review of those prevention projects.
	Let me conclude as I started by thanking the Committee and our security services for their work. They play a vital role in defending our citizens at home and abroad, and the money that we spend on them is vital. The Committee's work to ensure that we do the right thing and spend the money in the right ways and places is exceptionally important, but Parliament should be trusted to a greater extent with information about how that is done, even though that move should happen only within clear limits. Fundamentally, however, we will depend on a team of Members from all parts of the House serving on the Committee to ensure that we achieve value for money on behalf of this country's taxpayers. The Committee members' role is highly responsible, I thank them for what they have done and I commend them for it.

George Howarth: I hope to be fairly brief and to cover just two points, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), the Committee Chairman, made most of the points that the Committee would want aired in today's debate. I congratulate him on the leadership that he has shown, and the Minister for Housing and the Secretary of State for Wales on the leadership that they gave to the Committee. Indeed, I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd will be available to chair the Committee after the general election. The pattern seems to be that the Prime Minister recalls Members to the Government after they have chaired it, so my right hon. Friend may find himself a Minister again. That, of course, is when we win the next general election.
	I shall cover two issues. First, there is the oversight of the agencies' finances. As the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) rightly said, when a series of organisations have had large budget increases such as they have had since 2005, great care must be taken to ensure that the money is spent appropriately and wisely. Like my right hon. Friend, I did a brief, and in my case probably undistinguished stint as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. One similarity with how the Intelligence and Security and Public Accounts Committees work is that they both take advice very strongly from the National Audit Office. The NAO provides us with a good brief when we interview the agencies, so that we can question them closely about how money is spent, and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell was right to draw attention to the fact that, at a time of expanding budgets, the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Government themselves must be careful to ensure that money is being spent properly.
	My right hon. Friend mentioned the difficulty concerning intelligence relationships with the United States and the intervention of the courts in certain cases in this country. The issue concerns how the courts treat intelligence shared on the understanding that it may never be used in any public way, not even in a court case. The judgment of Lord Justice Thomas and Mr. Justice Lloyd Jones on 5 February 2009 dealt with that issue, which had arisen from a case to which my right hon. Friend has already referred. The judges concluded:
	"In the circumstances now prevailing, the balance is served by maintaining the redaction of the paragraphs from our first judgment. In short, whatever views may be held as to the continuing threat made by the Government of the United States to prevent a short summary of the treatment of BM being put into the public domain by this court, it would not, in all the circumstances we have set out and in the light of the action taken, be in the public interest to expose the United Kingdom to what the Foreign Secretary still considers to be the real risk of the loss of intelligence so vital to the safety of our day to day life."
	On occasions, I have been a critic of the courts, and sitting on a Committee with quite a number of judges for a while last year only confirmed my criticisms. However, the judgment that I have just quoted was very sensible. I say only that these issues are bound to continue and we know that more potential legal actions are pending. The matter is difficult. The judgments so far have been sensible in that they take into account the interests of justice balanced against those of national security and the need for a strong intelligence relationship with the United States. However, we need to be vigilant in making sure that the line is held as far as possible.
	I have a further point to make. As my right hon. Friend said, the Committee recently visited Ottawa. We also went to Washington, where we met representatives from counterpart committees and some of the agencies. Without revealing too much about what was said to us on a more or less confidential basis, I can say that it is clear to me that these issues have exercised the American agencies, to the extent that future co-operation between us and the United States is being held open to question by them. I will not put it more strongly than that; I do not want to be alarmist. However, as the judgment made clear, if that relationship were to fracture and the important intelligence started to dry up, the risks would be enormous.
	My right hon. Friend referred to the "ticking time bomb question", a phrase used by the Americans; in the UK, the more usual phrase is the "Canary Wharf question". Whatever it is called, the question raises serious issues. Hon. Members who have now left the Chamber raised the matter of potential collusion in torture. In no way would I justify any kind of torture; I agree with every word that my right hon. Friend said about that. However, we have to pose the ticking time bomb or Canary Wharf question. What if any one of us were a desk officer in one of the agencies, and intelligence came in saying that within the following 24 hours a major explosion or other incident would probably take place in a major city or town in this country and that the intention was to kill hundreds of people? Are they going to stop and question whether somebody, somewhere along the line, might have been subjected to sleep deprivation in order to arrive at that judgment? I will leave that as a question mark. It is an issue that we are working hard on and have some thoughts on, and I think that the intention is that we will publish something in the not-too-distant future.
	This is a huge question. It is all too easy to say that one should never have anything to do with any intelligence unless one can be absolutely certain that it has been arrived at by the best possible means and meets all the very highest standards. In some circumstances one is, frankly, grateful for the information that one gets without asking too many questions about the circumstances in which it was produced. I accept that that is a factor in certain circumstances where it is possible to believe that somebody may, because of what they have been subjected to, said something that would not stand up to scrutiny. I also accept that there are all sorts of qualifications surrounding the question that I have posed. However, we sometimes need to be a bit more rigorous in the way that we think such questions through, as opposed to the yah-boo politics that sometimes applies. That is not intended as a point for the Opposition: it applies in all parts of the House.
	The Committee is the only committee on which I have ever served where party political loyalties play hardly any part at all. I have as much praise for Opposition members of the Committee, including the Liberal Democrat Member, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), as I do for my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is hugely important that we function in that way, not only for the benefit of the House, but for the benefit of the country; and long may we remain to do so.

Tom Brake: I thank the right hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) for introducing the debate in very careful terms. I join other Members in thanking members of the intelligence services for the essential role they play in ensuring our security and protecting citizens here and abroad. I pay tribute to members of the Committee for the essential work that they are doing, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who served on the Committee and has now been superseded by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who is not in his place. I am sure that he, too, will play a very significant role on the Committee.
	I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), who is unable to be here to lead for the Liberal Democrats in this debate. When he did so last year, he underlined the importance of debating these matters on an annual basis; on that occasion, there had been an interval of nearly two years. I welcome the fact that the annual cycle appears to have been resumed. These matters are so significant that we need to have an opportunity to discuss them regularly.
	I welcome the fact that, during the period covered by the report, the Committee focused on 7/7, which clearly had very tragic consequences for those who were involved. I suspect that most, if not all Members will have been to a much lesser extent affected by what happened on that day, and will remember where they were in London and whether they were able to get into Westminster. I hope that the Committee's work on that—I look forward to the report being published on 19 May—will provide as many answers as possible for the families affected, given the limitation on putting into the public domain information that should be kept secure.
	I shall not go over the ground that the spokesman for the official Opposition covered on redaction, but I reinforce his point about the difficulty for Members who are not on the Committee of making any assessment of the value for money of what is proposed. Explanations have been given of why it is necessary not to provide a certain level of information, but I hope that it might be possible to do so without revealing any confidences and that we will be given a little more flavour as to why it is not possible to give Members an understanding of expenditure at a high level.
	I understand that if expenditure were broken down to such a level that it identified, for instance, that nothing is currently being spent on monitoring messages via Facebook or those being dispatched via Twitter or any of the other new technology that is available, that would be unhelpful to our security services and helpful to our enemies. I am sure that no one is suggesting that information should be made available to Members at that level of detail. However, it should be possible to provide us with some more information, or, if that is not possible, to explain why not. I cannot quite understand what our enemies would be able to extrapolate from high-level figures that did not break down expenditure to a lower level.

Andrew MacKinlay: I wonder whether the Committee's Chairman might take cognisance of the following suggestion. There needs to be an indication of whether redactions are done by the Committee itself or by the Prime Minister. Perhaps there ought to be separate symbols that would indicate if the Committee thought something was okay but the Prime Minister objected. That should be indicated to us at the very least.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I do not know whether it will be possible for the Chairman to make any general comments, perhaps in an intervention, to clarify that point.

George Howarth: To enable the debate to continue properly after the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), I am not aware of any occasion on which the Prime Minister has asked for the redaction of anything. The process of redaction is one of agreement between the various agencies involved in the Committee.

Tom Brake: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

Michael Mates: What the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) says is absolutely correct. Just so we all understand it, the system is that we produce a full report, which goes without redaction to the Prime Minister. When it goes around the agencies and, if necessary, to Ministers, they suggest some redactions.

Andrew MacKinlay: And you acquiesce?

Michael Mates: If the hon. Gentleman will just shut up for a minute, I will explain what happens.
	It is then the Committee's job to go through those suggested redactions and ensure that every one is justified. In every case that I can remember, we have had the agencies back in and said to them, "Justify this. Justify that. Justify the other." They then withdraw their objections to some things, which are published.
	The real point is that we have a deterrent. It has never happened in my 15 years on the Committee, but if there were a redaction with which we disagreed because we did not think it was about national security, we would put in the report, "We wished to publish this, but the Government refused to allow it." I do not think that any Government could live with that, and I am not making a party point. It is done by agreement, but we look rigorously at the whole issue.

Tom Brake: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which has provided some clarity. My reading of the report therefore suggests that there has not been a redaction in this particular annual report that the Committee felt was inappropriate and that it sought to challenge. I see that the right hon. Member for Pontypridd confirms that by nodding.
	I would like to make some specific remarks about the Committee's recommendations and the Government's response. I was interested to note the comments about ethical counsellors and referrals to them. Around 12 referrals have been made since 2006. Footnote 56 on page 19 of the annual report refers to concerns about
	"whether there were sufficient controls for sharing information with countries that do not comply with international standards for the treatment of those in detention and whether guidance for staff on these matters was sufficiently accessible and understood."
	I doubt whether we will get more information about that, but it would have been helpful to know the response to that approach to an ethical counsellor, and whether there was deemed to be a problem.
	It is also interesting to note that a complaint was made to an ethical counsellor about
	"whether it was ethical for the Government to seek to alter the ideological views of its citizens (as part of its counter-radicalisation strategy)".
	Today, Gallup published an interesting opinion poll, which states that 77 per cent. of Muslims identified with the UK—a much higher figure than that for the general population. That statistic is relevant to referral to an ethical counsellor.
	Other hon. Members have referred to retirement age policy. Like the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), I am confused about the necessity to hide the current age at which retirement is set.
	Recommendation F states:
	"Following the floods in the summer of 2007, the Agencies have reviewed and improved their business continuity and resilience planning."
	There is a little more information on page 27, which states:
	"The Director General also told the Committee that he remained concerned that the Service's existing business continuity plans had not been fully tested and so a series of major exercises were planned for 2008."
	Is it possible to say whether those exercises were successfully completed?
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) referred to SCOPE. Clearly, lessons have been learned from failure and I hope that it might be possible today to explain precisely what they are, and what, if anything, has been implemented to try to ensure that the problems do not recur, given the unfortunate history of large IT projects going somewhat awry. One hoped that lessons had been learned from previous projects and implemented in projects such as SCOPE, but that has clearly not been the case so far. What lessons have been learned and have they been acted on already?
	The Committee welcomed the fact that the Chilcot conditions
	"meet our concerns that the Agencies' capability must not be damaged should their intercept material be adduced in court."
	We have been supported the Chilcot review and the need to ensure that intercept evidence is available for use. There are several deadlines by which action was to be taken on that. The current deadline is June, by which time,
	"testing the framework that has been developed to ensure that the Chilcot tests will be met in practice"
	should have been completed. If it is appropriate, can hon. Members be updated today on whether that target has been reached? That would be helpful. Recommendation Q states:
	"The Committee considers that maintaining the capability to intercept modern communications is of critical importance to the national security of the UK."
	I am sure that all hon. Members agree with that.
	I hope that in response the Government might explain what dialogue exists between the different commercial players in that field. I am aware that there is perhaps not a clear method for companies such as Microsoft to raise issues relating to the privacy implications of some of the developments that it is bringing to market. We might need to consider who such companies talk to about some of the issues relating to intercepting modern communications.
	An issue that has been raised in Westminster Hall is technological developments and how the Government, the security services and others keep abreast of things such as Facebook. People have discussed whether sufficient co-operation, dialogue and exchange takes place between the commercial companies developing such technologies and the Government to ensure that if issues relating to security, or its counterpoint, privacy, need to be addressed, they are examined and dealt with as soon as possible and way before, or at least shortly before, any such technology is made more widely available.
	The final point that I wish to raise relates to what the Committee had to say about rendition. Its Chair, who is not in his place, referred in some detail to a case. I checked with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) whether there was any bar on referring to Binyam Mohamed and I understand that there is not, given that much of the case has been debated in open court.  [ Interruption. ] The Chair has now returned, so perhaps he could intervene to explain why he did not feel able to mention Binyam Mohamed by name; I wonder whether there is a slight tendency to be over-secretive about a matter that is well and truly in the public domain and has featured prominently in many of our national newspapers. Some serious allegations have been made, and it was not clear to me whether the Chair said that the Committee's investigations into that matter are now complete or whether there are still further, ongoing inquiries. The report clearly states that there is further work to be done, but the Chair sort of indicated that things might be complete. I hope that he will intervene to clarify that point.

Kim Howells: I would not like to clarify that.

Tom Brake: No clarity will be given then. If there are still matters to be debated and inquired into, I hope that such work will progress, so that we get to the bottom of what happened and of whether there is any truth in the serious allegations, and that the Committee will report on them in the near future in a way that is appropriate to the need both to protect confidentiality and provide security.
	I wish to bring my remarks to a conclusion by saying that the Committee has clearly done sterling work in the past year or so, but there are many significant issues, such as what happened to Binyam Mohamed, that I hope it will continue to investigate to ensure that, as a nation, our citizens and communities are even better protected than is the case now.

Dari Taylor: I wish to start, as I believe I have done in every debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee's reports, by putting on the record the fact that we owe a debt of thanks to the agencies. The absolute fact is that they are under considerable pressure to know the individuals who are actually or potentially involved in plots against our communities and to have adequate knowledge to prevent those plots from being carried out. Counter-terrorism is a highly pressurised and dangerous world—it is a 24/7 world—and it is particularly problematic for all who are on the front line. That debt of thanks is more than well deserved.
	I also want to put on record the fact that, over the past year, the intelligence and security agencies have achieved a number of notable successes, disrupting plots and bringing individuals to trial and conviction. When we say where we are and when we say that the terrorist conditions are problematic and severe, it is critical that we hear the facts. There were 46 terrorism convictions in the first nine months of 2008, in 15 significant terrorism cases. We report that in our annual report. Since January this year, there have been 11 terrorism convictions, in six trials. Those are serious figures. We know that plots are disrupted and we know that we do not talk about them—we are a security Committee, and it is critical that we maintain our silence on some of the information that we know.
	The fact for us all is that the current threat to the UK from international terrorism is assessed as severe. That means a continuing and high level of threat and supports the belief that there is a high likelihood of a terrorist attack in this country. It is daunting to say that, but it is important that we realise and accept it. In saying that, I am sure that some may accuse me of peddling the politics of fear. I am not. I am quoting the risk assessment—an assessment, I believe, that the majority accept and that the majority know requires adequate resourcing for our security agencies.
	I intend to speak about the SCOPE project, as I have in two previous debates. In my first two speeches on SCOPE, I was enthusiastic and cautiously optimistic that, should it work, this effective IT system would be of serious value to the security of our country. Today my contribution will be less enthusiastic; it will be critical. The House will remember that SCOPE was set up as a major cross-government IT programme, with the aim of improving the intelligence community's secure communication. The first stage is working—secure information held by all the agencies can now be accessed by all agencies in the UK—but the second stage is not. The aim was to include all the user Departments and widen access to the international intelligence community.
	The Committee, consistently and in a focused manner, asked all about the workings of SCOPE. We expressed concern that partner Departments lacked preparation, which we were convinced would put at risk the successful delivery of the project. Sadly, our Committee's concerns became a reality. We were told in 2008 that considerable work had been done to reduce the risk of further delays and that SCOPE II would be operational in late 2008 to early 2009. It is difficult to say that to the House, because hon. Members could ask, "What were you doing as a Committee? Didn't you think that you should've put stop processes in place?" However, we could not do that, because that is not our role. Our role is to question. The fact is that SCOPE II was abandoned. New routes of secure communication for the international members of the intelligence community are now being worked on. SCOPE II has been a mess.
	The reason I have spent time detailing that is that it is important that the House knows that we were focused in our questioning. We were concerned to achieve an understanding and a sense of reality about whether the project would work. We know that international terrorism is assessed as severe. We know, too, that communicating effectively and securely in the current environment is a must. The risks are assessed as high. Consequently, we need to know whatever information would prevent an attack from taking place. That is essential. The Committee was told that secure international communication is necessary and deliverable. It is clearly necessary, but frankly, at this stage, it is not deliverable. We need to be very focused and to try to understand what we are talking about, because it involves complex technology.
	The second reason why I am talking in these quite angry terms is that tens of millions of pounds have been spent. I expect that hon. Members know the actual figure—or the probable figure—involved, but I am simply going to talk about the tens of millions of pounds that have been spent on a project that has been scrapped. Seriously good scientists who had worked in IT for years were involved in it, yet we have ended up coming to the House asking, "What have we got from this?" The answer seems to be that lessons have been learned, and that when we plan future communications of this order, we will use those lessons. That is not good enough. We required stringent controls, financial accountability and more competent management, as we stated in our 2007-08 report.
	Perhaps I have dwelt on the matter long enough, but it has been a costly and damaging experience, and there are further words to be added. We are talking about highly complicated communications technology and seriously complex science, and an absolute requirement that the system should be secure. I am using these words not as an excuse for failure but as a text for future success. The Committee will of course investigate further the reasons for this serious failure, and we will report on the matter in the forthcoming year.
	My second task in the debate is to speak, perhaps in a confident way but certainly in a persuasively supportive way, about the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism. The Contest and prevent strategy has more to it than we might be prepared to accept at present. We all want to know what its value is, and whether we can make judgments and determine its effects. The fact is that we are looking at an extraordinarily complex set of value judgments. We are trying to understand what causes the belief in some people in Great Britain today that the only way in which they can express their opposition is though radical, violent extremism. We need to do better than that, however.
	Those involved in the contest and prevent strategy say that they want to drive cohesion and to see greater strategic capacity in the fight against terrorism. They want principles to inform the approach that is being taken towards being inclusive and integrated, and they want to see the policies working together. Is this just sweet language? I think that it is valuable language that tells us that Great Britain is a tolerant nation. We are a nation of people who want to understand, and we want to reduce violence in our communities when that is possible. I am not going to understate the value of that strategy.
	The Committee is awaiting an update on the outcomes of that work, and we will be interested to see how, and whether, the new counter-terrorism public service agreements are working and what they are achieving. We will ask those questions and look at the development of a new capability to see whether we can detect emerging and future threats. This is valuable work. We have entered an extraordinarily complex era, in which we must understand difference and try to influence the outcome of the battle for ideas and beliefs. That is not easy, and I commend the Home Office for taking this work on board. It is an important part of the strategy to prevent radical extremism.
	We speak regularly to those in the communities that we represent. I have a small Muslim community, which makes up about 2.7 per cent. of my constituency. I know that some of those people feel a sense of guilt that they are living a life that people back home in Pakistan think is an easy life. Those people in Pakistan have very difficult lives. There is frustrated anger, and some young people believe that the thousands of deaths of innocent people were a consequence of our deploying and that we deployed, in their terms, only because we were seeking preference or something better for our country. Invariably, they cite oil. Well, deploying in the Balkans was anything but that, yet it remains difficult to get those people to understand that we did not spark Iraq, suicide bombers and sectarian warfare. That debate is an important and valuable one. I see some of the youngsters in my community understanding that perhaps they do not have all the answers.
	One of the most important elements of the prevent strategy is to look at the way in which many of the Muslim community come to believe that they are treated as lesser people who are valued less. That may or may not be a fact. As a woman in the labour movement, I have always been convinced that far too many white men in suits are in control, so perhaps my Muslims are thinking along exactly the same lines. It is important to understand that when people feel lesser or that they are an undermined minority, they might well want to kick against that.
	As I said, this is a very complex bit of kit that the Government have put together and the Committee will be looking to see what it achieves. We will attempt to see whether the pilots for young people, women and seniors in our different ethnic communities contribute to change by allowing, for example, young people to be angry. The fact is that Muslims are often keen to say that young people do not have a right to a voice; of course they have. My father and mother could not possibly shut me up even as an 11-year-old who was demanding equal rights; and I am quite a diminutive young woman, as Members know. The Muslim community has a very clear set of ideas about who should or should not be speaking, so it is important to persuade them to allow us all to hear the anger when it is expressed. This project is all about reducing violent extremism, challenging the ideology behind extremism and supporting the mainstream. Let me say that among the 400 of my Muslim community I met last Sunday, about 99 per cent.—if not 100 per cent.—in the room were mainstream.

Patrick Mercer: I am extremely interested to hear what the hon. Lady—the diminutive young lady opposite—has to say. All that we have heard about in the debate about Project Contest so far is the prevent strand, while the other three strands have not been mentioned in any detail whatever. What makes this House so obsessed with that strand? Is it because it is politically correct; is it because it is immeasurable; is it because it is nice, soft and easy? Why do we not talk about the other three strands, particularly the parts that are harder to pursue? Why has the hon. Lady chosen to concentrate so much on that strand?

Dari Taylor: I have concentrated on it because that is what our report concentrated on. It is important that I have integrity and reference what the Committee has done, although the hon. Gentleman has raised important questions. We make it clear in our report that both contest and prevent are important, and the hon. Gentleman provokes the thought that even now, as a Committee, we should see how and in what way we could take evidence relating to pursue. I agree that we must look at the strategy as a whole. Of course, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that the Committee will do that; I can only try to persuade that it should. The Committee believes that all this is work in progress and the report states that the strategy is on a sounder footing and that we will monitor its progress.
	In conclusion, I believe that the Committee is led very well. My right hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells)—known in the locality, of course, as Ponty—leads with a serious and robust determination to achieve the best. I also want to put on record my belief that the whole Committee is not only hardworking, but has a very clear focus on what it is doing, which it believes is serious and important. It commands from all of us the commitments that we give. It is a privilege to be on the Committee and it is a privilege to tell the House today that I believe that our security agencies are the best.

Michael Mates: I congratulate our new Chairman, the right hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), on his thoughtful and thorough introduction to today's debate. It is good that we are having the debate in this form for the first time. Those of us who have served on the Committee for a while will remember the long opening ministerial speeches in previous debates, which were nothing like as focused as our Chairman's introduction has made this one. I also thank our staff, who are a smashing lot, and work very hard for us. I have had the privilege of chairing two Select Committees for 10 years, and the excellent service that we have always expected and received from the Clerks in this place is matched by that of the dedicated civil servants who work on the Intelligence and Security Committee.
	I have been a member of the Committee since it started 15 years ago. As the Committee's dinosaur, perhaps I can put in perspective the demands that we hear from around and about, but mostly from the usual suspects, although one of them is clearly satisfied, as he has gone home, and I have no doubt we will hear from the other—

Andrew MacKinlay: At length.

Michael Mates: I never doubted that either.
	I want to put in perspective how much change has taken place over the past 15 years. Acts were passed in the early '90s, and when the Committee began in 1994, the process was very tentative for both sides, especially the security services, which had not even been acknowledged before that moment. GCHQ happened to employ half of Cheltenham and occupy an enormous piece of real estate by a main road, but it did not exist. We have moved from that to a position in which accountability—I am not being complacent, as it must improve further—is so much better. The first time we had the head of ISIS before us, he almost would not tell us his name. Now the security services are as pleased with the arrangement as they were initially suspicious of it.
	I cannot remember for how many years—seven or eight—the National Audit Office refused to pass GCHQ's accounts. It could not find its equipment, did not know where its computers were, and had a lousy accounting system. Year after year, we questioned GCHQ, with the result that no fewer than three directors general have told us that without the Committee holding its feet to the fire, it would not have got it right. That is a concrete example of the good the Committee can do, although it does it in secret. The fact that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) cannot see the figures is neither here nor there. The fact is that the accounts and procedures are right, and the figures have been passed by the NAO and scrutinised by us. If he does not want to take our word for it, at least he ought to take the NAO's, because that is the only way it can be done.
	The changes in the other services have been just as huge. It sticks in my memory that the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service told us in a meeting that one of the questions it asks itself now when planning an operation is, "If this goes wrong and it gets out, what are we going to say to the ISC?" Previously, he might answer to the Foreign Secretary, but not to anybody who would report to the House. The fact that the services must now do so is a constraint on them, first, to obey the law, secondly, to take the right proportionate action, and thirdly, to be thoroughly ethical in what they do. All those things have been achieved because the Committee exists.
	We will never satisfy the many people who want us to look like a Select Committee. If we looked and acted like a Select Committee, we could not do the job we do. The two things are in contradiction—

Andrew MacKinlay: The Prime Minister—

Michael Mates: When the Prime Minister came into office, he said that he wanted to see some changes. I was going to come to that, but I will do so now, as the hon. Gentleman keeps trying to interrupt.
	Yes, we would like to be more open. Yes, we would like to hold public hearings. Yes, we would like to be able to publish more. In each case, however, we must ask ourselves just one question: will what we do enhance or damage our national security? If it will damage our national security, with regret we do not do it; if it will enhance our national security, we try to do it.
	Other Members may have their own views and their own observations to make about the question of public hearings. The right hon. Member for Pontypridd referred to it, as did the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). There is a wide range of views in the Committee. We would all like to hold public hearings. Some of us think that it will be harder than others do; some think that we must do it regardless of how difficult it is, because it is what the Prime Minister has asked us to do. We shall try to reach a conclusion, but I will say now that it would be pointless if we did it just as a PR exercise.
	When we were discussing the issue, someone from outside the Committee whom we had invited to join our discussions said, "Of course, you could always rehearse it with the heads of the security services." Does any Member think that that would wash with our friends in the media for more than two seconds—that they would believe it was not a carefully staged exchange before we closed the doors and threw everyone out? In my view, it would be thoroughly counter-productive. We will try to find a way, but I cannot tell the hon. Member for Thurrock or anyone else whether we will succeed. It is not that we do not want to do this; it is just that there are some real practical difficulties, although if we can overcome them we will.
	The next issue to discuss is where we are going. I am trying to demonstrate to the House that we have made some progress. Things are changing all the time, although, being a bit of a cynic, I must add that it may be a case of "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."
	The objection was raised—by, I think, the hon. Member for Thurrock—that the Prime Minister had hand-picked the Committee, and that we were the Prime Minister's puppets. Well, as one of the present Chairman's predecessors said rather tersely when that was put to her by a journalist, "Some of us were hand-sacked by the Prime Minister as well." There are two sides to every coin.
	What happened, I believe, was that the usual channels produced a little list and gave it to the Prime Minister, and that produced the Committee. Now, because we have changed things, the usual channels give a little list to the Committee of Selection, the Committee of Selection gives it to the House, and the House approves it. So what has changed? We all know in our heart of hearts who runs the business of the House and our parties. It is run by the usual channels, which Enoch Powell once described as the parliamentary sewers. There was nothing rude about that—sewers are clean; it is what goes through them that is objectionable. But I do not think I shall go any further down that road.
	The change has been made, and it seems to have pleased some people. If it has, so much the better. We are now having an annual debate, and we can have more than one. I hope that the House authorities will find that there is enough in our report on the 7 July bombings to warrant at least a half-day debate, so that Members outside the Committee can air their views. I issue a plea to the Government to try to make some time for that.
	We can look forward to the possibility of evidence resulting from communications interceptions being made available to the courts. Others have referred to the Chilcot strictures; I merely say that it will be an extremely difficult exercise, not just because we cannot produce intercept evidence in court today, however it has been obtained, but because we—or they—are working on the next generation. The people who are responsible for trying to obtain our intelligence must keep ahead of the advance of technology. What could not have been dreamt of five years ago is now available to the terrorists, and we had better ensure that it becomes available to us damn quickly so that we know what is going on.
	I have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and the House that the faster things move and the more the technology develops, the harder it will be to allow intercept evidence to be produced in court without someone asking "How did you collect it?" That, of course, is the key because terrorists and any criminal organisation must communicate and they do so in ways that they think are safe. As has been shown by recent trials, the ways they think are safe are not necessarily so. It is the job of our security services to make sure that they are not, but not to tell them what it is we are using to catch up with them, keep up with them and get ahead of them.
	As we move forward and change, we must have security at the front of our minds. Tempting though it is for someone in Parliament and public life to say we should be more open and push the door a bit so that the public can know more, there are times—I know that this is not a good time to say this—when our politicians have to be trusted. We are very fortunate in the Committee in that there has not been a leak in 15 years and we are trusted by the security services, by Government Ministers and, I hope by extension, by the House. We are not party political; because we sit in private, there is no point in anybody grandstanding or making a speech. If that were to happen, half of us would go to sleep; it just does not happen.
	Perhaps I can finish on a light note. When we were abroad, the Committee was entertained to dinner by an ambassador at his house and the conversation came round to party politics. We were asked whether we were a party political Committee. The Chairman of the day asked the ambassador to try to identify us. The ambassador, who should have read his brief more closely, got 90 per cent. of us wrong and I had to go through the rest of the visit having been called a socialist by one of Her Majesty's ambassadors, which I found a little difficult to take from my colleagues.
	We must try to be more open and to make progress but above all we must ensure that our national security, which is so brilliantly looked after by our security services, is not damaged.

Ben Chapman: It is a pleasure, albeit a daunting one, to follow the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). It is a pleasure to work with him and with colleagues from both sides of the House on the Committee. It is also a particular privilege to work under my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). The precedent set today of the Chairman opening the debate is shown to have been as well judged as his remarks in doing so. I add my congratulations to our staff and of course to the agencies on their work.
	It is not the most exciting subject under the sun, but I wanted to spend a little time on the finances and expenditure of the agencies. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) stressed the importance of that, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). It has to be the Committee that does the job of overseeing the expenditure and finances of the agencies, not least because it has a statutory responsibility so to do, but also because it involves, as has been said before in the debate, having access to highly classified secret material to do the job. We are assisted in our task by DV'd—DV is developed vetting—officers of the National Audit Office. Our resource, albeit a rounded one in terms of the experience of Committee members, taken with the excellent officers of the NAO, is none the less very limited, and in this respect and in others we could do with more resources.
	The expenditure of the agencies, which has become a large sum and increased relatively over the years, could, especially in an organisation that operates largely in a covert way, become a very high-risk business. It could become the trigger for waste and inefficiency, and the Committee must try to ensure that that is not the case. That behoves us to spend quite a lot of our year's work looking at the agencies in this regard. It is right, of course, that the amount of resources devoted to the agencies should be increased in line with the increased threat, but these are very large sums. Under the 2007 comprehensive spending review round, the funding available to the agencies will increase from £1.1 billion in 2005 to just over £2 billion by 2010-11. Because the baseline increases year by year, in the current year, for example, much of this funding is supporting what is now baseline activity. None the less, although 78 per cent. of the additional amount that GCHQ receives will be used to consolidate the current position, 22 per cent. will be available for further expansion, and that is a large sum. For the Security Service, the situation is rather different: only 20 per cent. of the additional amount it receives will be in support of the baseline position, and 80 per cent. will be available for expansion and investment in new capabilities. The figures for the Secret Intelligence Service show that 31 per cent. of the funds are to be spent on the current position and 69 per cent. are available for expansion and investment. High levels of risk are involved, and high levels of monitoring are required.
	GCHQ will spend its increased resources on strengthening its counter-terrorism effort, primarily through operational support in the UK to an expanding Security Service. The theme of the agencies working together has become well established both in UK operations and in theatre overseas. GCHQ will also carry out work against international terrorism-related targets. Importantly, it will develop its capability to combat extremist use of the internet in the UK and abroad, and it will improve its internet-related capabilities, and the remainder of its international counter-terrorism effort will focus on issues such as the cyber-terrorist threat.
	The risks implicit in large-scale expenditure on major projects, and in particular on major IT projects, have been recognised in our debate. One of the heaviest demands on the GCHQ budget is its technology improvement programme, designed to maintain and enhance its signals intelligence—SIGINT—capabilities. That collectively comes together as the SIGINT modernisation or SIGMOD programme, covering IT infrastructure, internet programmes, better analysis and support to military operations. The amount of funding that is required for this is considerable and represents a significant proportion of the single intelligence account budget, but the Committee recognises that this investment in SIGMOD is essential if GCHQ is to keep up with, or even get ahead of, the complexity of the technological challenge.
	The Security Service is, if you like, rather more of a people-based organisation than GCHQ. It spent its capital funds in the 2007 CSR on major technical accommodation projects, including a northern operation centre and new services building in Northern Ireland. On the revenue side, as it were, it will increase the impact and improve the effectiveness of the service's agent-running capability and increase the service's regional presence to reinforce its partnership with the police. Just as it partners with other agencies, it also partners with the police and other organisations. However, as it is a people-related organisation, its major funding increase will be staffing expenditure. It continued its rapid recruitment programme, so that by April 2008 it had a total of 3,400 staff, including secondments and attachments. Staff numbers are projected to grow to some 4,100 by 2011. Those are big figures. It may be a statement of the obvious, but recruitment has largely been at junior levels, with year-on-year growth of around 30 per cent. in those grades since April 2006. That has boosted the number of front-line staff involved directly in counter-terrorism work, co-ordinating investigations, running agents and conducting surveillance of targets. But there are risks in recruiting and growing so rapidly, especially at junior level, and those risks are related to vetting, with the potential for infiltration or problems with inexperience—sometimes wide inexperience across an agency. There are also the dangers of grade inflation. As far as we can tell, the agency appears to have handled those risks well.
	The SIS's budget, from 2008-09 to 2010-11, will enable it to continue supporting the growing number of security service investigations of terrorist activity. It will involve both spotting and attacking operations originating outside the UK and terrorist networks overseas. We noted in our previous annual report the increased proportion of SIS staff working in joint operational teams with the Security Service—some 10 per cent. of staff in counter-terrorism teams are SIS officers, including officers co-located with the Security Service in regional stations and overseas. That closer working enables the SIS to improve its support for the Security Service on the overseas aspects of counter-terrorism investigations. It spent 9 per cent. more than in 2006-07 in the subsequent year, but that compares with the Security Service's 41 per cent. more over the same period.
	In our last annual report, we noted the National Audit Office's comment that it had identified two cases in the SIS's 2006 accounts of errors in the reporting of payments to agents. We were assured that that would not happen again, but in one case it did to some extent. We now have assurances that the SIS has changed its procedures so that such expenditure is reflected accurately in its accounts in future, and we will of course check that.
	The agencies all performed well in the 2004 spending review—SR04—in terms of efficiency savings targets, which were more than met, so—as is the way of the world—the targets have now been increased. The NAO viewed the financial management and control of the agencies as good, and so did we. While the economic circumstances surrounding the next comprehensive spending review round will be very different, the Committee has already expressed its concerns that attention to long-term challenges—those not related to ICT—such as counter-proliferation, regional stability, energy issues and espionage, may continue to receive less attention than they need. We have also expressed concern about the need to invest further in the capacity to intercept modern communication and deal with cyber challenges. There will be a need for major expenditure in that area of the agencies' work.
	The Committee welcomes the work being done on establishing a new framework for monitoring the performance efficiency and financial management of the agencies and, in particular, it is considering, in consultation with them, ways in which oversight of the budgets can be conducted in a more timely way. That needs to be an in-year oversight, rather than an end-of-year oversight.
	Finally, the threat level remains serious. Terrorism, in my view, works best where it is least expected. Terrorist organisations change, fracture, morph, franchise and copy, and they change and grow constantly. It is important that our agencies and intelligence machinery anticipate these changes and prepare for them. The demand for resources will remain considerable and the need for oversight of them will remain proportionate to that.

Patrick Mercer: I speak in this debate every year, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Ben Chapman). This is the first time that I have risen to speak as chairman of the counter-terrorism sub-committee. On that note, I thank the Home Secretary and draw attention to the outstanding work of a little-known organisation, which has, in fairness, been mentioned today—that is, the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism. The sub-committee has recently been to visit it and we were all hugely impressed. Mr. Charles Farr, who is at the head of the office, deserves to be hugely congratulated on the work that he is doing.
	The other thing that interests me, and I am surprised that it has not been mentioned, is that over the past few months, active terrorism inside this country has, of course, come not from the Islamist fundamentalists on whom most of us have concentrated—indeed I shall concentrate on them—but from the hands of republican terrorists in Northern Ireland. Anybody who has doubted the time, effort and resources that the security services have put into countering that threat has only to look at the series of successful arrests that followed the horrid murders outside Massereene barracks and elsewhere in Northern Ireland over the last few weeks. The arrests were a huge feather in the cap of the Security Service and the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Dari Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that we are discussing the 2007-08 report. The 2008-09 report will more than likely contain a section on all the issues that he is addressing.

Patrick Mercer: Of course, and I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. The fact remains, however, that while we are doing parish notices some extraordinary work has gone on in Ulster and I believe that it deserves to be recognised. I underline the work of the OSCT, as well as that of the PSNI and others.
	Let me return to the second 7/7 report and posit a number of questions that fall within the overall structure of the ISC report. I ask the Home Secretary and the Chairman of the ISC why a second report is being produced. I then want to ask the Chairman a number of questions and, if those points are not covered in any great detail, I suspect that there will still be many more questions to be asked.
	May I quote Rachel North? Many of us in this Chamber will know who she is. She is certainly the most vocal of those who were injured during the 7/7 attacks, and is an extremely articulate young women who has made her views clearly known. She said:
	"Two things are important to victims of terrorism, crime and violence: justice and truth.
	There will never be justice in the 7/7 matters since the 4 murderers chose to die willingly by their own hand rather than face a jury and a Judge. The legal process has ended in acquittals, the police investigation has met with silence and acquittals. In the absence of justice, we must at least have truth.
	What we have always asked for is an inquiry independent of government, police and security services with the power to compel and cross examine witnesses and call in documents, files and other relevant evidence such as computer evidence—an independent investigatory body that the public can have confidence in."
	Those are the words of someone who was very seriously injured by terrorists. She was the closest person to one of the devices on 7/7 actually to survive. I ask the Home Secretary and the Chairman of the ISC to give us a broader view of the events of the last few years, and to start to come clean about why so much was left unanswered after the bombings of July 2005.
	First, we had the Crevice fertiliser bomb incident of early 2004, and the subsequent trial. Then there was 7/7 itself, and the much-forgotten attempt on 21/7. After that came the airline plot of August 2006, which was followed by the Glasgow bombings of June 2007. Lastly, there was Operation Pathway, about which we cannot ask too many questions because I suspect that there is unfinished business there.
	What are the links between those incidents? How much was known by the security agencies? Why were there such glaring omissions in the work of the Home Office and the security agencies, especially in relation to 7/7 and 21/7? Those omissions led to a successful bombing that killed 52 people and injured several hundred. If the subsequent bombing attempt of 21 July had gone ahead, I suspect that it would have killed many more than that.
	Various questions need to be asked. First, after the initial bombings of 7 July, why were the Government so quick to claim that the people who died by their own hands were "clean skins"? Why did they claim that nothing was known about them when it subsequently transpired that Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer had been traced for several months beforehand? They were traced inside this country and they were involved with the Crevice fertiliser plot, but they were also traced as they travelled abroad to Pakistan and then back into this country. Why were the Government so keen to insist that all the individuals involved in 7/7 were new on the radar?
	Secondly, why were we told that there was no apparent connection between 7/7 and 21/7, let alone between the Crevice plot and the London bombings of July 2005? How could the Government possibly be so ham-fisted as to claim that they were not connected, when the modus operandi in each was almost identical? The targets were very similar, the timings were uncannily similar, and many of the lessons from the 7/7 attacks—the things that did not work as well as the perpetrators would have liked—were implemented and put into practice by the bombers of 21/7. How on earth can the Government claim that the two incidents were not connected?
	I am grateful to the Chairman of the ISC for telling us when the second ISC report will be produced. I shall be extremely interested to read it and to see what has changed between it and the first report.
	The next question that I should like to be cleared up in some detail concerns Muktar Said Ibrahim, the leader of the 21/7 plot. He had a criminal record, was awaiting trial on charges relating to terrorism and was being tracked by the Security Service. Why was he allowed out of the country, despite being stopped at Heathrow and being found to be in possession of large sums of money and terrorist-related documents? Why was he allowed to go to Pakistan? When he was out of the country, he missed his trial and a warrant was issued for his arrest. When he came back to Heathrow, he was wanted by the police—why was he not stopped, arrested and brought to justice before he was in a position to carry out the failed attacks of 21/7? That was an extraordinary omission. Unless the second report from the ISC covers every detail of what happened, we will continue to need to ask very serious questions.
	Next, why was the alert level dropped just a few weeks before the bombings of 7 July? Even more remarkably, the alert level had risen by the morning of 21 July but it was about to be dropped back again on the very morning of a second series of attempted attacks. Why? That is not widely known to be the case, but it is the truth. That suggests one or two things: first, a complacency, which I simply do not believe, because I was heavily involved in the workings of the Government and the Opposition at the time; and, secondly, a hole in our intelligence. Why was it allowed to open up, particularly when so many individuals had been traced for many months beforehand?
	The next question is about the involvement and the masterminding—the oversight—of terrorist incidents by Mr. Rashid Rauf. I ask the Home Secretary: where does he fit? Is he alive? Was he or was he not killed—do we know?—in the autumn of last year on the Waziristan border? If it is proved that he was the guiding hand behind all or some of the incidents that I have discussed, what debt of horror do we owe that man? If we know that he was sufficiently important to be arrested at the behest of the United States in Pakistan at the start of the Operation Overt inquiries in August 2006, why was he allowed to run fast and loose inside this country for so long and with such devastating effect?
	It concerns me that after the horrors of the July 2005 bombings, the first Intelligence and Security Committee report, which was received then, needs to be revamped. However, I have huge faith in, and admiration for, the Committee, our security services and our police, but I very much hope that the next report, when we receive it, will answer all the questions that I have just posited. If it does not, I suggest that its parameters have been drawn too tightly, and that, instead of answering questions, it will simply place in the public domain more questions that need to be answered, and need to be answered urgently.

Andrew MacKinlay: It is always a privilege to listen to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), and I hope that the questions that he has posed will be answered with some expedition, because they are very pertinent. I do not think that he will be offended by this, but I had not realised that he was Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee's counter-terrorism sub-committee. That is significant for me, because in that context I deem him to be not a Back Bencher but the Chairman of a significant parliamentary Committee, meaning in turn that I have the distinction, whether I like it or not, of being the only Back Bencher to speak in this important debate.  [ Interruption. ] I am the only Back Bencher present who is not a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I am not getting killed in the rush to speak, and, from a parliamentary point of view, it is very worrying that there is insufficient interest in this most important and grave issue.
	In case there is any misunderstanding about my subsequent comments, I should say that I fully acknowledge and accept the gravity of our national security situation. I am also keen to make it clear that, in our intelligence and security services, there are some very skilled, dedicated, diligent and, indeed, brave men and women. However, culturally, there is imbued in the security and intelligence services a degree of arrogance which threatens our democratic institutions; and in one or two cases I believe that there is abuse of power. We have a real responsibility in this place to do all we can to check and monitor the little bit of information—the little bit of light—that we are allowed on our security and intelligence services.
	My later remarks will relate not to individuals—particularly not to colleagues—but to institutions, which brings me to the Committee Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). I readily say that when he was a Minister, not only did I have a high regard for him, but he did not have the hallmark of mediocrity that is characteristic of some Ministers. He was skilled and, contrary to his better judgment, courteous to me. He took up one particular issue for me; it related to the fact that the South African apartheid regime's chemical and biological weapons people had been entertained at Porton Down during the time of that regime. That fact was covered up, and continues to be so, by our security and intelligence services for reasons that are not entirely clear. It is still a matter of embarrassment and shame to them. My right hon. Friend tried to pursue the matter and assured me that Wouter Basson had never visited Porton Down, but I think that he was misled. Since I last had that conversation with my right hon. Friend, Wouter Basson has been on television acknowledging that he was given access to Porton Down on a number of occasions.
	None the less, my right hon. Friend is a very fine Chairman, and he and his colleagues have diligently and to the best of their ability discharged their work in a Committee that should not exist. It should not exist because it is a fig leaf. It deceives people that it is a parliamentary Committee. To me, it is not a distinction without a difference, but absolutely fundamental. We have no parliamentary oversight of the security and intelligence services in this place, save for the time grudgingly granted this afternoon—time that we will probably not have again, to any great extent, for another year.
	The Committee of which my colleagues and friends are members is not a parliamentary one. That is a serious flaw. If you care to glance at page 3 of the report, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will see that the Committee says that it
	"attended the Conference of the Parliamentary Committees for the oversight of intelligence and security services within the European Union, held in Portugal".
	I want to take it to task for that. Some might see it as a small point, but I do not think that the Committee had any right to be at that conference. In fact, the matter is potentially one of privilege; it is not a parliamentary Committee. I want to pursue the matter after this debate, because the Committee obviously gave the impression to people that it was a parliamentary Committee when it was not. We know that the Clerk of the House of Commons is not the Clerk of the Intelligence and Security Committee. That is not an unimportant point.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) mentioned how the Chair of the Committee changes. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), quoting a previous Chairman, said that the Committee Chairs were "hand-sacked" by the Prime Minister. That is not a matter of levity; it makes an important point about the unsatisfactory selection and approval by the Prime Minister of the Chairmen of the Committee and its members.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend referred to the conference in Portugal. For the sake of accuracy, I should say that if he looks further he will see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett) attended, rather than the whole Committee.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am a bit dismayed, because that does not alter my point. The report tells us that the Committee was represented at a conference that was supposed to be for parliamentarians—and it is not a parliamentary Committee.
	I do not want to lose sight of my other point, which is important and not a matter of levity. There is the fact that the chairmanship of the Committee changes with great frequency. That in itself is a serious flaw and handicap to the diligent discharge of its work. Similarly, there have been as many Ministers for Europe since Labour has been in office as there were apostles. No doubt the current chairmanship is due for another change.
	I will tell you what happens, Madam Deputy Speaker. During a Cabinet reshuffle, Ministers are called in, and the Prime Minister—Mr. Blair or the current one—says, "I am awfully sorry, but I need your job." The Minister's face falls. Human nature being what it is, there is great disappointment. I do not mean this in any nasty way, but there is an immediate reduction in salary and the loss of all the privileges that go with ministerial office. The Prime Minister says, "Look, don't be so depressed." The Minister says, "Why not? I'm losing my job." The Prime Minister says, "Well, Porton Down has come up with a thing called Cabinet cryonics." The Minister says, "What does that mean?" The Prime Minister says, "Well, basically, you take a slug of this and for about 14 months you go into a freezer—the chairmanship of the Security and Intelligence Committee." "Then what happens?" "Then we give you this, you take it, and you emerge as the Minister of State for defence procurement"—or the Secretary of State for Wales, or the Minister for housing and construction. That is what happens, and it is very reassuring.
	When my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), to whom reference has been made and for whom I have always had a high regard, was Chairman of the Committee, she presided over its reflections on the period when she was Foreign Secretary. It is breathtaking how ridiculous and stupid the system is.

George Howarth: I have been reflecting on whether my hon. Friend has partaken of any of the products he has just advertised and, if so, what effect that has had on his career.

Andrew MacKinlay: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention, I remind Members that we are discussing the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Andrew MacKinlay: Indeed we are. If you look at paragraph 11, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will see that reference is made to the Prime Minister's statement of March 2008, in which he promised that there would be more parliamentary debate on security matters. In fact, there has been no more debate on security matters since then. I understand that the Home Secretary is going to reply to the debate, so if I am wrong in saying that there has been no action on the Prime Minister's undertaking, she will no doubt detail why I am wrong.
	In July 2008, the House altered a Standing Order to put in our regulations the words—this is on page 5 of the report—
	"The Committee of Selection may propose that certain members be recommended to the Prime Minister for appointment to the Intelligence and Security Committee".
	I am not sure if that has happened yet, because I do not know if there is a vacancy. However, I find the phrase "certain members" interesting because, to me, it means that they have to be somewhat safe. I do not mean that disparagingly. I am told that one has to be positively vetted to serve on the Committee.
	I want to share something else with the House. When we had the debate on 42 days' detention, the Prime Minister sent for me twice in one afternoon. The first time I was flattered; the second time I considered it a shade impertinent. During those discussions, I reminded him that I could not support 42 days for a whole variety of reasons, one of which was that I considered that there was no oversight by Parliament of the security and intelligence services. He said, "We're going to change that." I said, "You said that, but you haven't brought forward any statute." I told him why I considered the Committee to be deficient. He then said to me, "Do you want to go on the Committee?" I said, "No, Prime Minister, you don't understand—I disagree with it." That also betrayed the fact that he had not understood the primary statute that creates the Committee, which means that the membership cannot be varied unless the Act of Parliament is amended. The Committee has 12 members—

Michael Mates: No, it does not—it has nine.

Andrew MacKinlay: I stand corrected. Nevertheless, the legislation defines the numbers precisely, and there was no vacancy.
	I objected to the Prime Minister's proposal not only because the Committee is not a parliamentary Committee, but because there is no way that I would get through positive vetting—I am pretty sure of that—and because one has to sign the Official Secrets Act, which would be anathema to me in the context of its driving a coach and horses through what I consider to be the priceless privilege of enjoying rights under article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689.

Michael Mates: It would be of help, particularly to anybody who is listening to the debate, if the hon. Gentleman got some of his facts right. He got the number wrong, and we are not positively vetted. I do not know why he makes these allegations as though he knew these things. If only he studied what we do, he could feel free to criticise us with the facts, not with his interpretation of them, which is so wrong.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am surprised that I have rattled the right hon. Gentleman's cage. Seeing as nobody else in this place is quizzing and questioning the whole raison d'être of the Committee and its report, I believe that I have a duty to do so. I fully understand that the Committee is a creature of statute, and that the number of Members is prescribed. It is rigid, not flexible, and the Prime Minister cannot increase its membership. My understanding is that certainly nobody would be appointed who did not find favour with the security and intelligence services.
	Paragraph 41 of the report, on page 13, states:
	"GCHQ is retaining the current external branding of its services, since CESG is a well established organisation that has supported clients in both the public and private sectors for many years."
	May I ask the Chairman of the Committee and/or the Home Secretary what is meant by the mention of the private sector? To whom is GCHQ providing a service, and on what basis? I think that there should be some clarification of that.
	In paragraph 51, on page 16, we have the comments of the director general of the Security Service. I shall read them to the House, because I think that they are interesting. He states that one of the priorities is
	"to try and know more about the people we already know about, rather than to find the people we don't know anything about. It would be nice to know about the unknown unknowns, but it is probably a less rich seam than knowing more about the people that we know are a threat to us."
	Frankly, I think that that is a load of gobbledegook—it is sort of Donald Rumsfeld-speak, and I do not know what is meant by that diatribe. Perhaps one of the Members who will speak subsequently, or the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, might like to share with me and the rest of the House what is meant by those comments.
	Paragraph 59 states:
	"Another key non-ICT focus for the Service is its counter-espionage work...with particular focus on China and Russia."
	When I read that paragraph, I was disappointed that there was no reference to the serious national threat of sabotage—that is the only word for it—by highly skilled IT people, particularly but not exclusively in the Republic of China. They are threatening all our communication systems in the UK, our systems for sewage and food distribution and our banking and financial system, and this House has not woken up to it.
	I am conscious of the fact that the seat that I am standing in front of was the last in which Winston Churchill sat in his time in the House of Commons. In the '30s he warned time and again how complacent we were in not addressing certain threats. There seems to be a conspiracy of silence about the threat to us from those who are developing an intellectual weaponry to kill our communication systems. If those skills are developed, they will present a much bigger threat than there has previously been, because there will be instant proliferation, unlike with atomic weapons. Small states and non-states could gain the capacity to administer such a threat. It can target states in a way in which nuclear weapons clearly cannot because there is not fallout and collateral damage. I am surprised that we do not discuss that threat much more in the House. It is time we were given some assurances that great energies and resources are being directed at combating that most serious threat, which is equal to, if not more serious than nuclear weaponry.

Tom Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is another argument for restricting the number of large databases in this country? If the hackers gain access to a centralised, large database, the damage that they could do would be much greater.

Andrew MacKinlay: I agree. I cannot overstate my concern and dismay about the lack of discussion of the threat in this place or in the media. It is most serious and worries me enormously.
	In paragraph 60, the director general of the Security Service states:
	"It is a matter of some disappointment to me that I still have to devote significant amounts of equipment, money and staff to countering this threat."
	I presume that he means the threat of China and Russia. I think that due diligence should apply when there is potential for espionage and getting our national secrets. However, I disagree with the director general when, on the few occasions he has spoken publicly, he used the term "political intelligence". I find it a serious threat to me as a Member of Parliament when the security services see it as their business to know whom I meet, where I meet and what I discuss.
	By definition, I have no state secrets. I could attempt to predict when Prime Minister Tony Blair would retire and when the next general election might be; I also have a view about the outcome. Those are not state secrets but my views. When the director general makes it his business to know whom Members of Parliament see, that poses a serious threat to us. I have not made that up. I have told the House previously how the former Chief Whip approached me about the matter, and I believe that a previous Chief Whip tried to get me off the Foreign Affairs Committee soon after the last general election, probably at the whim of MI5. That poses a serious threat to our political process, with which I will not put up and in which I will not acquiesce by my silence.
	The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) rightly referred to paragraph 66, in which the Committee boasts that the Security Service has
	"established an 'Ethical Counsellor' post to provide staff with an internal avenue to raise any ethical concerns".
	The small print in footnote 56 raises some interesting and concerning issues. In fairness to the Committee, it considered them important because they have been included in the report, albeit in a footnote. The footnote states that matters raised with ethical counsellors include:
	"whether the Service had adequate mechanisms to evaluate the mental and physical health risks to ICT agents; whether the Service should be involved in PREVENT work given the pressure it faces to tackle the terrorist threat directly".
	I was interested in some of the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) made about Prevent's work. I have an open mind about whether it constitutes core business for our security and intelligence services. The footnote also states that concerns had also been expressed to an ethical counsellor about
	"whether it was ethical for the Government to seek to alter the ideological views of its citizens (as part of its counter-radicalisation strategy); and whether there were sufficient controls for sharing information with countries that do not comply with international standards for the treatment of those in detention".
	That is a most interesting part of the report. However, I am not confident that an individual operative in our intelligence and security services would be treated fairly. I do not believe that sufficiently robust systems are in place to ensure that, by going to the ethical counsellor, operatives would not be disadvantaged in their career or worse.

Michael Mates: This is a serious and sensitive matter. What more can the Government or anybody in the security services do but provide somebody from outside who has complete access to all the security services, to whom anybody can come anonymously, who does not report back unless there are issues that the client wants to be reported back, and to whom such a person can unload any worries he may have in a very sensitive area about things he may be asked to do? This all came about as a result of the Dr. Kelly incident. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that this was a good thing to do, although he is saying it is no good. We have seen all the people who have been involved in this work; they do it conscientiously and I have no reason to think that they do not do it well. I know that those in the security services are very glad of this safety valve.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention, because he has amplified on the work of the ethical counsellor. I invite him and his colleagues to beef this up a bit more in their next report, because Parliament should be told. I cannot be blamed for not knowing or understanding all these things, because I am not in on the club. My duty here is to probe and try to tease out some of the information, so if he thinks that the work of the ethical counsellor is very positive and that I have probably underestimated its status and veracity, and the great contribution it makes to reassuring staff, I invite him and his colleagues to amplify on that in their next report.
	The backdrop to my comments is my deep unease about the stewardship of some of our security and intelligence services, particularly in relation to human resources, as I believe they are called, and their job of vetting. Paragraph 68 makes reference to what might be known as the Max Mosley case. I do not want to go over that, but as a Member of Parliament and a member of the public I found it breathtaking that an operative of the Security Service could have been so closely involved in this sting operation in relation to Max Mosley, given the nature of it. Clearly, the Security Service was also concerned about the situation subsequently, but the case raises questions about how good its positive vetting was. It was seriously flawed, which is why the case is demonstrably an example of where the organisation was complacent until this happened. Of course, there was also no desire to answer questions about this issue in the House. There comes a point where people are straining to argue that a national security consideration is involved and so the matter cannot be discussed. There should have been much more parliamentary discussion about the nature of positive vetting, rather than of the particular instance itself, because it did show that the organisation was not so very good on these matters as it would like to pretend.
	Earlier I intervened, rather testily, in relation to paragraph 92, and we were assured by the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) that he was totally satisfied that the redactions—these dot, dot, dots—were absolutely necessary. I am not going to let this go, because I find it fantastic that the retirement age for senior staff, which has remained the same, has been deleted. That is breathtaking in the extreme, and I think it takes the mickey out of Parliament and diminishes the effect and nature of this report.
	This may not have been understood, so I readily acknowledge, again, that the report contains some very interesting issues, which I welcome. Reference was made earlier to paragraph 94. I am not sure that we all understood what impact the floods had on GCHQ, although if it has been discussed in the House before now, I apologise. It is amazing that the floods in 2007 disrupted GCHQ's work so drastically and dramatically. Indeed, it is alarming. Of course one cannot always foresee floods, but somebody, somewhere—no doubt they have retired early—should have been on the ball. It is amazing that such disruption could have taken place. We should be told how and why that happened. What were the consequences? Were people disciplined? Were they asleep? What happened was a serious threat to our country's capacity to analyse and absorb intelligence, to listen and then to advise our Government and our security and intelligence services. It could have happened at a time of international crisis.
	There is a section on page 30 of the report, in paragraphs 111 and 112, about media relations. That interests me, because I understand that there are persons who act as interlocutors or intermediaries between the security and intelligence services and the press. The big national newspapers will have the name of someone whom they can approach—I imagine that it would be a retired security or intelligence officer on a stipend or per diem. He or she will then check things out with the security and intelligence services and come back to the paper, so that there is some way of insulating the press from face-to-face contact with operatives.
	I would like to know more about that. I do not particularly mind the press talking to the security and intelligence services or vice versa, but it is unacceptable when they talk to the press, but not to ordinary Members of Parliament. There needs to be some oversight of the system, because I have reason to believe that carrots and sticks are used, with rewards for journalists when the security and intelligence services want to leak something. I simply do not believe that certain leaks are accidental and unauthorised. Some of them are authorised. Sometimes they are deliberate and on a few occasions they are done with malice, with the intention of rubbishing people who are irritants to the security and intelligence services.
	More light should be shed on the ground rules for when the security and intelligence services talk to the media. Furthermore, I do not want the Chamber or the Committee to lose sight of this point: in a democracy, how can we justify the security and intelligence services talking to the press when they do not talk to Members of Parliament? We all know that, apart from the Intelligence and Security Committee, there is no interface between ordinary Members of Parliament and the security and intelligence services, unless they want an hon. Member to do their bidding. I find that extremely worrying and unhealthy.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South talked about the Prevent programme, which is referred to in paragraph 116 and which I found most interesting. I am not sure that the programme is the core business of the security and intelligence services, but I have an open mind about that. I hope that we hear more about the programme's work next year and about whether it represents good value and use of scarce resources, which we are told—and I accept this—are essential to combating the threat of terrorism and so on.
	In paragraphs 120 and 121, we are told about the ministerial arrangements for oversight of national security, international relations and development. The Cabinet Secretary tells us:
	"as you can see from the number and frequency of the meetings, it is actually happening. This is much more real."
	To give some context, that means in relation to what recently went before, when there was a committee chaired by the Prime Minister that met only three times in about one year. Full marks to Ministers and the Cabinet Secretary for meeting much more frequently, but perhaps we ought to know more about what was not happening just two or three years ago. The Committee that is reporting to the House today has been in existence for some time. Was it aware of this shortcoming two or three years ago? Did it report it to us? If it did, and if that had an impact on the Prime Minister, full marks to it. It would be interesting to have that position amplified.
	I find it somewhat surprising that an individual, Jane Knight, is named in paragraph 135 of the report. She was until recently the professional head of intelligence analysis. I think that you have presided over these debates for a number of years, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have heard all the arguments about redactions, and you have probably heard me complain about how, when I asked the name of the Clerk to the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Prime Minister refused, in two parliamentary replies, to tell me what it was. I then found the answer in the civil service yearbook. This afternoon, we have heard all the arguments about why we need redactions, yet this poor lady, Jane Knight, is named in the report. I would have thought that that was highly irresponsible, because everyone will now know that, until recently, she was the head of intelligence analysis. Why is her name included, when all these other matters that are seen to be of paramount importance require redactions involving having dots everywhere, and when the Prime Minister will not answer a Member of Parliament's question? I think that this is indicative of the sloppy culture among some of the people who have oversight of our security and intelligence services.
	If Members think that that is wrong, let me move on to stewardship. I give full marks to the Committee for its comments on SCOPE in paragraph 147 on page 40. I hope that some of the press will look at this. I am dismayed at the poor attendance here, but I have a sense that not many people are exercised by our debate this afternoon, and that not many have looked at the report. My right hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd and his Committee should be given full marks for paragraph 147. I have listened carefully to what he and others have said on this matter, and if people look at the  Official Report tomorrow, they will find that they have been very gentle with the Cabinet Secretary and the security and intelligence services in relation to SCOPE.
	The report states that SCOPE is
	"a major cross-government IT programme aiming to improve the intelligence community's secure communications."
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South told us about this, and she was refreshingly candid and clearly very distressed. I invite hon. Members to read her speech tomorrow in the  Official Report. This is a monumental scandal. The programme cost millions upon millions of pounds of scarce resources, and I think that members of Her Majesty's Opposition have been too gentle about this as well. I am sorry that I am having to provide the opposition here. There should be a major demand for more information about this, because all that money was wasted.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South told us, all this happened against a backdrop of her and others being reassured that the programme was all on track. Then, all of a sudden, as the report states
	"the Cabinet Secretary told us"—
	that is, the Committee—
	"that, despite all this work,"—
	and millions upon millions of pounds—
	"Phase II of SCOPE has now been abandoned."
	The Committee goes on to quote the Cabinet Secretary as saying
	"we know that the way they were planning to do [Phase II] won't work...So we are working actively on ways in which we can achieve those benefits, but probably through rather different routes."
	This should be a matter for a major inquiry, and people should be sacked for it. It is a classic example of the culture in the country: the bigger the mess-up, the greater the cost, and the higher the rank of the person who presided over the mess-up, the greater the rewards. I have no doubt that the Cabinet Secretary will, in time, be awarded a seat in the House of Lords, and that some of the other people who presided over this either already have gongs or will have their names advanced on a subsequent honours list. If it had been a small man on a small amount, he or she would have been sacked. We should bear in mind the unprecedented language used when my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd says in his report:
	"We have consistently reported concerns about SCOPE and are appalled"—
	I repeat, appalled—
	"that Phase II of the system—on which tens of millions of pounds have been spent—has now had to be scrapped."
	He goes on to reassure the House:
	"We will be investigating the reasons for the serious failure of this important project, and will report on the matter in the forthcoming year."
	I think that reporting on the matter in the coming year is not sufficient. There should be a separate and immediate inquiry into this matter by the Committee, and the House of Commons should be allowed maximum disclosure.
	I have detained the House on other occasions about the Wilson doctrine. I remind Members that it relates to the fact that in the 1960s Harold Wilson made it quite clear—he was a victim of bugging and unauthorised surveillance by the security and intelligence services, which abused their power—that there should be no listening in to what were then the landlines of MPs' telephones. An important issue that many people failed to understand was that when it came to the "overriding consideration" of national security, Wilson's doctrine stated that the matter must be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity.
	About three years ago, there was an attempt by people in the intelligence services to get Tony Blair to alter the Wilson doctrine; to his credit, he said no. The Committee itself raises the Wilson doctrine in the report, but fails to tell us how much it probed into it. Particularly in the light of events surrounding what happened to the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), I think that we need to be constantly reassured. I believe that this involved a serious attack on MPs and parliamentary institutions, so we must be reassured that there is no slipping in the determination of this Prime Minister to ensure that the Wilson doctrine is adhered to and brought into line with all the modern communications systems that now exist. I hope that when the Home Secretary replies, she will be able to provide some reassurances on this matter.
	I particularly mentioned the hon. Member for Ashford because paragraphs 162 and 163 deal with the Official Secrets Act. We discover in paragraph 163 that the Home Secretary apparently told the Committee
	"that recent case law has meant that the need for reform is now less urgent",
	whereas there had previously been some talk about reviewing the Official Secrets Act. The most recent events—probably happening after the report had gone to the printers—have shown that there is actually a need to modernise the Official Secrets Act. I very much welcome the fact—I was always confident about it—that charges were not brought against the hon. Member for Ashford. I was also confident from my knowledge of the law that there were would be no prosecution of the man who leaked the information either. He committed a professional offence and it was certainly right for him to be dismissed from the civil service. Particularly in the light of even more recent judgments, however, there was never any prospect of a prosecution—and prosecuting the hon. Member for Ashford would have been wrong.
	I put it to the Home Secretary, "Why don't you get real?" and recognise that it would be prudent for the House to revisit official secrets legislation, not with a view to ensuring a prosecution against an MP next time, but in order to ensure that the Act deals with the people who actually pose a serious threat to our national security rather than those who are a source of political embarrassment?
	I have asked questions about the circumstances referred to in paragraph 177—the leaving on a train of top-secret Government papers by a member of the Joint Intelligence Committee. We were first told that the matter was being investigated, but the House, the Committee and I were then told that no real discussion could take place because there was going to be a prosecution.
	A prosecution took place on 28 October 2008, and the person involved, who I take to be an MI5 employee, was subsequently fined. I do not want to labour that point, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd and his colleagues on the Committee were promised that once the matter had been exhausted in the courts, with some dispatch, they would be acquainted with the circumstances and allowed to investigate. However, to quote the report:
	"At the time of writing, the Committee is still awaiting the sight of Sir David's report"—
	that is Sir David Omand. I do not think that the Committee is a proper parliamentary Committee, but that quote shows contempt by Sir David for it. He has not bothered to write to the Committee, or to invite it in. It is the Committee saying that. The court case was concluded on 28 October. That is simply not good enough.
	I am not surprised about Sir David Omand, because he is arrogant. However, I want to place it on the record that it is appalling that the Committee is being treated in such a way. We have been told by Committee members that their resources are inadequate for their investigations. I sat here muttering to myself that knowledge is power, and the Committee will not be given more resources. If it is to be given more resources, the Home Secretary can announce it this afternoon, but I bet she will not. However, the resources should be available if the Committee is to discharge its functions as it sees fit. Until such time as there is a proper parliamentary Committee, it is wholly wrong that it should be denied the necessary resources. I hope that the Home Secretary will reply to that at the Dispatch Box
	I have a little ceremony: when I leave this place and go down to the pizza restaurant by Millbank tower, I pass Thames house and, to the dismay of my wife, pause, look up at the camera and say, "I am watching you too." I intend to go on doing so as long as I am in this place, and I do not care if I get ridiculed. We are threatened by not having sufficient oversight and control of our security and intelligence services. Some in those organisations are brave, skilled and diligent people, but some are arrogant and abuse power.

Jacqui Smith: I am glad to have the opportunity to close this debate on the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee. As some other Members have said, this is the first debate taking place under the new arrangements, whereby it was rightly introduced by the Chairman of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) pointed out, the House will today have the benefit of hearing from only one Minister—me—closing the debate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd pointed out, however, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would very much have liked to attend the debate, but he is on important business abroad, and he has communicated to me his wish for that to be made clear to the House.
	As many Members have commented, our security and intelligence agencies play a crucial role in protecting the interests of the UK at home and overseas. They provide a first-class service to the country in often difficult and dangerous circumstances, and have had many successes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) pointed out, since 2001, with the help of the security and intelligence agencies, more than a dozen terrorist plots have been disrupted, and almost 200 people have been convicted of terrorism-related offences. Overseas secret intelligence has given us a vital edge in tackling some of the most difficult security challenges we face. We are safer, our families are safer and the British people are safer because of the work done by our security and intelligence agencies, and they deserve our thanks and support. I am pleased that that was reiterated by almost every Member who spoke today.
	I thank the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee for their hard work over the past year, and for the grilling of which I was on the receiving end relatively recently. I also thank all the Members who made today's debate so constructive and useful. In particular, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, both for chairing the Committee and for opening the debate. I join him and others in paying tribute to the previous Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), and to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). Both of them have stepped down from the Committee over the past year, but their work over the year contributed to the ISC's 2007-08 annual report.
	Let me respond to one of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). The replacement for the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), was approved and appointed to the Committee in line with the new procedures that the House debated and approved on 17 July 2008. The suggested reforms ensuring greater parliamentary involvement in the appointment of Committee members have already been implemented.
	It is worth putting on record the importance of those who undertake the necessary judicial oversight of the agencies: the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the Interception of Communications Commissioner, and the president and members of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. I thank them and their staff for their diligent and important work.
	The challenge, as always, is to strike the right balance between the protection of security and the most important of human rights, the right to life, and the impact on the other rights that we and our democracy hold dear. I am convinced, however, that the right balance of mechanisms—legislative and ministerial, and in the form of the oversight provided by the Committee—exists to ensure that the agencies fulfil their lawful duties appropriately and effectively. It is essential for important matters relating to the national security of the country to be considered fully. Today's debate has provided an important opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of that vital area, and I thank all the Members who contributed so helpfully.
	Let me deal with some of the points that have been raised. There was, of course, discussion about the nature of the Committee itself and the way in which recent reforms have worked. I am glad that the right hon. Member for East Hampshire corrected the suggestion that ISC members were subject to security vetting. He is right: they are not, although they are notified under the Official Secrets Act so that they are fully aware of their responsibilities.
	As we have heard, this is a Committee with a strong cross-party membership. I am sure that ISC members past and present would rightly resent an implication that they were somehow in thrall to the Government. That certainly has not been my experience, as I made clear when I spoke of being on the receiving end of its interrogation; and, as Members will see if they read Committee's reports carefully, it has, when appropriate, criticised the actions of both the agencies and the Government.
	There has also been some discussion of the nature of the redactions in the reports. I am sure that Members will appreciate how much of what our security and intelligence agencies do, and how they do it, must be kept secret so that the agencies can operate effectively and do the job that we want them to do. To avoid prejudicing that operational effectiveness, it is necessary to redact some of the material before publication. I am sure that Members appreciate that the Committee's reports have a global readership, which will inevitably include those with hostile intent who will be poring over every word and figure for clues as to our capabilities, weaknesses within those capabilities and ways to circumvent them. It is important that we maintain that capability and do not, in the very important job of scrutiny, undermine precisely the capability that we are scrutinising.
	There was some important discussion about the role that public sessions may play. I know that the Committee is giving serious consideration to how those public sessions can be organised. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself have both already agreed that we would be perfectly content to be questioned by the Committee in public session, but it is important that those are meaningful sessions in which, quite rightly, the important job of accountability and scrutiny can be carried out in a way that gains public confidence.
	There have been calls for the right amount of resources for the Committee to carry out its very important role. The Cabinet Office has worked, I believe positively, with the Committee to ensure that it has the resources that it needs to fulfil its remit efficiently and effectively. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock asked me to outline the increases in resources that the Government have made available. In response to the reform package approved by the House, the complement of the ISC secretariat has been increased from six to eight, bringing the staffing up to the level enjoyed by comparable Select Committees. A general investigator to support the work of the Committee is in the process of being appointed and arrangements have been brokered for the Committee to have access to independent confidential legal and financial advice. I understand that notwithstanding the tightness of resources, to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred last year, resources are in place to finance all those measures and to ensure that the increase in resources is available to the Committee to do its job.
	During the debate today—certainly it forms an important element of the report—the issue of ensuring that the considerably increased resources that are being provided by the Government to the security and intelligence agencies are gaining the greatest value for money has rightly been an important area of focus. Recognising the demands that the current threat situation makes on what we expect from the agencies, the Government have significantly increased their funding to over £2.3 billion by 2011 in the current CSR settlement—an increase of over £1 billion since 2003-04. That level of funding is an indication of the Government's commitment to national security and our strong determination to counter threats from international terrorism.
	I know that one of the issues that, quite rightly, has exercised the Committee—it is represented in the report—is the way in which that increased resource is allocated, the priority that is given to international terrorism and the extent to which that may impact on other important priorities. Counter-terrorism is necessarily the highest priority for the agencies, but resources are finite and it is necessary, given the scale of the threat from international terrorism and the unique role of the agencies in countering that threat, that work on some other non-counter-terrorism intelligence requirements should be appropriately re-prioritised.
	The important point here is that although some other areas of work may well, in terms of the proportion of overall resources allocated, have seen their allocation decrease, because of the additional commitment made to the agencies, actual spend on them has increased. There is still substantial and successful effort against those non-CT target areas. Capabilities that have been funded and supported by the Government, and developed precisely to deal with the issue of counter-terrorism, often result in increased flexibility and capability that can then be used in other areas of the agencies' work. That is a very important element of the agencies' work to ensure that they are flexible and can respond to sudden or unexpected threats, whether from terrorism or other international events. That has been one important aspect of using the increased investment in the agencies.
	In holding the Government and the agencies to account, the Committee has rightly challenged us on value for money, particularly in relation to our work on counter-terrorism. For the first time, we now have a public service agreement to ensure that we are achieving the objectives that we have set out, not only in terms of the agencies but more widely. That is an important way to ensure that the increased funding delivers the objective of reducing the terrorist threat.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South and other Members have raised the SCOPE project, and particularly their concern about the abandonment of phase 2. The Government take this issue extremely seriously. We are very aware of the loss of any public funds, and especially at the current time. That is why the Cabinet Office has given the ISC a detailed memorandum outlining all aspects of the programme. The financial details have yet to be finalised. The decision to terminate the contract, which was not taken lightly, was reached after detailed consideration and legal and technical advice. We are co-operating fully with the ISC's inquiries into SCOPE, and it will rightly continue to question the Government on that.

Andrew MacKinlay: Who is to blame—the Cabinet Office or the security and intelligence services? I realise that asking this question might be in vain, but what scale of cost and loss was involved in this scandal?

Jacqui Smith: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I am not going to start talking about the sums of money involved as extremely sensitive negotiations are currently taking place. This programme was co-ordinated centrally through the Cabinet Office. That is why the Cabinet Office has been responding and, I believe, providing considerable detail about the programme, and what is being done with regard to it, to the Committee, and it will continue to do so.
	Several Members, including the ISC Chair, rightly identified the fact that, the reporting restrictions now having been lifted, on 19 May the Committee will be able to publish its review of the intelligence on the London terrorist attacks of 7 July 2005. I welcome that. I share the view of Members that that will be very important not only in order to answer questions, but also—and not least—for the families who lost loved ones and for those who were injured in the attacks. I know that the Committee has worked extremely hard to ensure that the concerns of the families and some of the questions that have been raised today have been tested and pursued. This is, of course, the second review, which was prompted following the conviction of the 2004 fertiliser bomb plotters. I note that the Committee reported in May 2006 that nothing could have been done to prevent the attacks, but it is right that it has taken the opportunity to update and reconsider that work, and I am sure that many people are awaiting the publication of the report with interest. However, I am also sure that Members, including the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), would recognise that it would be inappropriate to comment on the contents of that report before it is published on 19 May.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) raised the issue of the national security strategy. That has not only provided an overview of the work of the intelligence and security agencies, but taken a much broader view of the entire range of issues that impact on the security of this country in a complex and changing world. An update of the strategy is being developed, and it will be launched before the summer recess. It will demonstrate how Government thinking has developed on all the threats facing the UK. It will take into consideration the work of the National Security Forum which is now up and running. It met in March, chaired by Lord West. Among other things, it discussed the national security implications of the economic downturn and of scarce energy resources. The forum brings together a wide range of participants from both the private and public sectors.
	The update will cover the use of cyberspace as a means for individuals to act to harm the UK. Several hon. Members commented on that issue as an important feature of the threat that we face. I hope that they will be reassured that the Government will focus on that in the update of the national security strategy. We will also publish a UK cyber security strategy separately.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock questioned the role of the Communications-Electronics Security Group—CESG—within GCHQ. It is the national technical authority for this country and provides information assurance to Government, as well as working across the critical national infrastructure to keep networks and information secure. It is important both in setting standards for the way in which information is assured and in working to mitigate some of the threats that my hon. Friend identified.
	The shadow Home Secretary also raised the issue of intercept as evidence. As I pointed out in my written ministerial statement on 12 February, we remain committed to using the best evidence available to enhance the ability to bring forward prosecutions in cases. That is why we endorsed the recommendations of the Privy Council review report on the introduction of intercept as evidence. That is also why we set up the working group to develop the methods through which it might be possible to use intercept as evidence and to test them against the nine operational tests identified in the Privy Council review report to ensure that those can be met—especially the protection of national security and the need to ensure that the agency's capabilities are not damaged by any change in the law to permit intercept as evidence.
	I was slightly surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman suggest that those nine operational tests should be challenged. If he thinks that they are no longer important, perhaps he should take the point up with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who is working on the Privy Council advisory group on the development of this work. I believe, as do the Privy Counsellors, that they are important operational tests that need to be met. Work is now focused on testing the viability of using the model that has been delivered, including role plays of trial processes, and when that has culminated and we have received final advice from counsel, we will be able to make a final assessment of whether and how intercept as evidence should be implemented.
	The recent controversy about the involvement of the security services in detention activities was also mentioned, and that has been the subject of intense scrutiny in recent months. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his statement on 18 March made it clear—as the Government have done at every possible opportunity—our complete condemnation of the use of torture for any purpose. It has no place in a modern democratic society. We will not condone it and nor will we ever ask others to use it on our behalf. It could not, of course, be used as evidence in our courts—quite rightly—as we have seen tested in some recent court cases.
	To protect the reputation of our security and intelligence services and to reassure ourselves that everything was being done to ensure that our practices were in line with UK and international law, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set down four things that we will do. First, we will publish the guidance to intelligence officers and service personnel about the standards that we apply during the detention and interviewing of detainees overseas. Once that has been consolidated and, importantly, reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committee, it will be put into the public domain. That will enable some of the difficult questions and the challenges posed by the circumstances in which our agents operate to be aired. Some of those questions were raised by my right hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd and for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth).
	Secondly, we will invite the Intelligence Services Commissioner to monitor compliance with the guidance and to report to the Prime Minister annually. Thirdly, to ensure that the systems are robust and to be certain that any lessons have been understood, we have asked the ISC to consider any new developments and relevant information, since its very important reports on detention in 2005 and on rendition in 2007.
	Fourthly, we have made it clear that wherever allegations of wrongdoing are made, they are taken seriously. I referred to allegations that came out in the judicial review of the Binyam Mohamed case last year to the Attorney-General and she has asked the police to investigate. If further cases of potential criminal wrongdoing come to light, the Government will refer them to the Attorney-General. In addition, several of those previously held in Guantanamo Bay have chosen to put their allegations before the civil courts, where they can and should be tested.
	Another important issue that was quite rightly mentioned is the protection that we need to put in place and maintain for the terms of trade of our intelligence relationship with our international partners and particularly with our closest and most important intelligence partner, the United States. We would not expect sensitive intelligence that we had shared to be disclosed in a foreign court and that is the basis on which the case has been made in the current legal case about maintaining in closed summary some of the intelligence that has been received from our partners in the US.
	Our intelligence relationship is fundamental in protecting British people. It is worth defending and, as the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made clear, it is a precious relationship that we will not know that we have lost until we do not receive the sorts of intelligence that, I am convinced, have on occasion enabled us to save lives in this country and abroad. That is the significance of the relationship that we are protecting.
	Several hon. Members raised the Government's overall approach to countering terror. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Newark, in his role as chair of the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, praise the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, which he called a little-known organisation. I disagree with him on that. It is, of course, an important organisation set up as the strategic lead across government two years ago and, as he recognises, it is playing a very important role in bringing together the Government's approach to countering terror. It was responsible for the production of the Contest strategy, which I recently reported to this House. That strategy was based on an analysis of the threat that we face from international terrorism and spelt out in an unprecedented open way the approach that we were taking to counter terror.
	The strategy is based on the four Ps: how we pursue and disrupt terror plots; how we protect against terrorist attacks; how we prepare in the event of terrorist attacks; and, importantly, as the Committee has identified, how we prevent people from turning to violent extremism and terrorism in the first place. That of course goes far wider than the community programmes mentioned by the shadow Home Secretary. I have spoken before about how the inspection and evaluation of those programmes will enable us to show that the money involved is being well spent on countering and reducing the threat from terrorism that we face in the long term.
	We have had a good and important debate today. I commend the ISC on its work in scrutinising what the Chairman called the nuts and bolts of the security agencies. The agencies are more effective for being subject to the Committee's detailed consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Ben Chapman), in rightly saying that the Committee undertakes detailed work in scrutinising the agencies' administration and effectiveness, made it clear that it plays a very important role.
	The debate has also made it clear that the agencies' work raises challenging questions about the balance between openness and their ability to carry out work that, by its nature, needs to remain covert and protected. I believe that the debate, and the structures that we have put in place, enable us to strike the right balance.
	We are fortunate to have the best intelligence and security services in the world. There are people of the highest integrity and bravery in all of them: I am honoured to be able to work with them, and it is vital that we support them in acting to protect our country. We must do that in a way that is consistent with our values and our commitment to human rights. I am confident that we do so, and believe that today's debate has assisted us in that regard.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of the Annual Report of the Intelligence and Security Committee for 2007-08, Cm 7542, and the Government's response, Cm 7543.

PETITION
	 — 
	Christie NHS Foundation Trust

John Leech: I wish to present the "Cash Back For Christie" petition organised by the  Manchester Evening News and signed by more than 100,000 people in Manchester and across the country. The campaign supports the Christie hospital getting back its £6.5 million, and I should like to pay tribute to everyone involved in it.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the Cash Back for Christie M.E.N. Campaign,
	Declares that the Financial Services Compensation Scheme should reimburse the Christie NHS Foundation Trust with the £6.5 million lost in the Icelandic banking collapse.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take action to encourage the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to reimburse the Christie NHS Foundation Trust with the £6.5 million lost in the Icelandic banking collapse.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000363]

CIVIL LIBERTIES (MOLE VALLEY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Steve McCabe.)

Paul Beresford: I shall begin by reassuring the Minister that I do not intend to use all the considerable time available for this debate. However, I want to give him an understanding of a matter that my constituents raise with me in correspondence and at my surgeries with monotonous and increasing frequency.
	For the Minister's benefit, I should tell him that Mole Valley is the largest constituency in Surrey. It is semi-rural and rural, looks green and prosperous, and has two main towns and about 30 villages. More than 50 per cent. of the inhabitants vote Conservative when elections come along—and long may they continue to do so—but some aspects of the area are deceptive. Some constituents are wealthy—some of them extremely so—and knowledgeable, but many of the people, especially in the villages, are poor and live in very difficult circumstances.
	When I was out knocking on doors one Saturday morning fairly recently, I spent some considerable time persuading an elderly couple that their circumstances were such that they should claim council tax and rent benefits to ease their financial problems. The husband got very cross, and he explained to me that he was a former soldier who had fought for us in the second world war and then remained in the Army. What worried me was that he did not seem to understand that paying his taxes in effect set up an insurance scheme that allowed him to claim the relevant benefits.
	I hope that the Minister might one day look at the benefit form, because what upset my constituent most of all was that it was 30 pages long—it was at that stage; it is now down to 29 pages—and full of questions that he said were too nosey and not relevant. Owing to that, he did not want to claim, and, although I have gone back and tried, he is still not claiming, because he feels that the questions interfere with his civil liberties and are too intrusive.
	In the main, my constituents are well educated, very aware and definite absorbers of news. That applies to all age groups, and a considerable portion of my contact with my constituents over recent years has been about various broad civil liberty issues. In Mole Valley, there is a strong feeling that we need national and personal security; it is important. There is also huge support for the police, generally, which is just as well, because the central police grant to Surrey police is so low that almost 50 per cent. of their costs are borne by Surrey council tax payers. That said, there is increasing concern that we are being spied on by the state, that huge volumes of deeply personal data are being collected by the state and others, and that the situation has gone too far.
	I read recently that the average person in the United Kingdom has about 3,250 pieces of information about them collected and stored every week. Obviously, much of that is not state-sourced; I refer to store loyalty cards, banks, internet responses, an individual's place of work data and so on. However, I shall highlight a few areas of Government-generated data collection. First, there is the centralisation of medical data. Most patients are unaware that their medical records are sent from their GPs to a central source that can be accessed from other health clinics and hospitals nationwide. The base logic makes sense, especially if I take note of my secondary hobby, which is dentistry, because if an unknown patient arrives with a debilitating condition, or is on a keen medication that may have side effects or interact with other drugs, that and similar information will be required by the clinician. My constituents and I accept that, but more information will be passed down the data tubes and be made available, and more is being collected centrally.
	I ask the Minister, if he is bothered, to have a quick look at the Australians. They have a similar system, which has been under way for some years, and about two years ago there was a big blitz. A Sunday newspaper reported it, because there were known to have been more than 750 breaches of that system's security. The breaches took place over a fairly short period and were not necessarily of national or international importance, but they were certainly important to those whose security, data and information had been sourced. Many, if not all, of the breaches were personal: spouses, lovers, neighbours, relations and so on, checking up on individuals who were known to them. However, one can well imagine the temptation for a scurrilous individual seeking to access a pop star's health records, a footballer's health records or even those of a well known politician, and being prepared to pay for that information—pay handsomely on occasions, because of the payback for it.
	I find the Government's intention to keep data on individual phone calls, text messages and internet access details extremely Big Brother. Most disturbing is the spectrum of people who are permitted to access that information. I have discussed the matter with a number of senior Metropolitan police officers, and they have explained to me the procedures that must be gone through before they can give someone permission to access it. However, the spectrum of people who can access it goes right the way along to local government, where I very much doubt that such restrictions apply.
	A recent concern for me and many of my constituents has been the UK criminal DNA photo and fingerprint database. Since its launch in 1995, it has, I understand, become the largest or second largest database in the world. It has the details of more than 5 per cent., and rising, of the population. As the Minister would expect me to point out, Government blunders—the loss of personal data and sensitive information, carelessly left for public access—have been a deep concern. Furthermore, there are the concerns about our increasingly Big Brother culture.
	Despite today's Home Office announcement—or perhaps, in part, because of it—serious questions about the functions and ethics of the database still need to be answered. DNA samples taken at arrest or from a crime scene are collected and sent off to a third-party company for analysis and storage. The profile, consisting of the DNA sequence, gender, ethnicity and age of the person involved, is then loaded on to the database. The database costs millions each year to maintain. Between 2000 and 2006, it cost the taxpayer about £270 million, excluding the storage costs for the individual samples; they fall to the individual police forces. I hate to think of what the costs would be today.
	I understand and support the fact that we have a national database for criminals, but a considerable number of my constituents who are not criminals are on that database, and they include children. That is the biggest concern. I shall tell the Minister about two cases that illustrate my point. A quiet, retired engineer lives in one of the villages in my constituency. He does a little work on his computer to supplement his pension. One Saturday morning last year, there was a knock on the door and a policeman and policewoman pushed in and arrested him. They took him off to Guildford police station and charged him with the theft, some months earlier, of a laptop computer from Currys in Guildford.
	My constituent protested his innocence. The police took his DNA, fingerprints and photograph and set him down for a court case a few weeks later. He went home, checked his data and was able to prove, through a combination of factors and witnesses, that at the time of the alleged crime he had been sitting at his own laptop in his own office 20 miles away. His solicitor put that to the police and a more senior policeman considered the scant evidence—a couple of fuzzy photos on CCTV showing someone who looked faintly like my constituent, except that my constituent's spectacles were different. That senior policeman saw that it had all been a mistake, and the case was ripped up. An apology was given to the engineer and one of the arresting officers got a severe rap over the knuckles. However, my constituent's DNA, fingerprints, photographs and so on were kept. There were months of battle before that clearly innocent man—who had no record, no charge, no brush with the police—could get the information taken off the database.
	Perhaps a more important case involved a young lady coming home on the train to another of the villages in my constituency. On getting off, she was violently attacked by a group of young ladies. When the police were called, the attackers ran off; when the police arrived, they arrested the victim. It took considerable time for them to recognise that they had made a mistake. They had already taken my constituent's DNA, photographs and all the rest of the data. In spite of the apologies and a rap over the knuckles for the police concerned, it took nearly a year to get my constituent's information taken off the system. Following the new idea that has come forward today from the Home Office, that young lady's data will be stuck on that file for seven years, yet she was plainly the victim and totally innocent.
	Last year, I had the privilege, pleasure and entertainment of meeting the Association of Chief Police Officers representative responsible at that time for the national DNA database. He spent a considerable length of time explaining and reassuring us about the security measures to protect the integrity of the database. It was impressive. I asked him whether he agreed that the bigger and more expensive the database, the more valuable it is to attackers. After all, if hackers can get into the Pentagon files, they can probably get into DNA files in this country. I put it to him that if the file is important enough, or big enough, somebody with criminal intent, groups with criminal intent, or someone from outside the country may try to hack into it or to pay somebody for access. He said that the last of those scenarios was his deepest worry.
	In the past few weeks, the big issue that I have been hit with by many constituents is ContactPoint. At first, I was surprised that my trusting public, and so many of them, were so concerned. They all agree that vulnerable children need protection and that the system may help them, but I believe, and so do the parents, that it is outrageous progressively to place every child on the system. Effectively, every child will now have a Government number—yet another one. It will not be tattooed on their arm, but stored on a Whitehall computer. I have to tell the Minister that the parents are far from happy. I asked them to have a look at the website so that they could get a full understanding of it; now, if anything, they are more concerned, and I share their concerns. Next, there is the prospect of ID cards, and behind them there is the national identity register; it is not only Orwellian but, as one of my constituents put it to me, smells of a database ready for the Stasi. The whole project is an expensive data-collecting mistake, and it should be dropped. I support my Front Benchers' view on that emphatically.
	Many Government databases have legitimate reasons for existence, such as car licence data files, taxation records, information on individuals entering and leaving our shores, passport information and so on, but the variety of information collected for many of those systems seems to be expanding. It was a great relief to me, and to many of those who wrote to me, when the proposal for centralising access to the various systems was withdrawn from the Coroners and Justice Bill. However, Government form is such that unless the public throw them out at the election, which is looking increasingly likely, that horrible little measure will return at the next opportunity.
	We have CCTV cameras everywhere, but few people are aware of how much of the data is stored, for how long it is stored, how many cameras there are, or that a policemen sitting in New Scotland Yard can use many speed cameras to view and follow cars along our London roads. Of course, it is all in the cause of crime prevention and detection, and so on.
	The key point for the Minister is that the greater the collection of personal data, and the more it is centralised, the more vulnerable we are as individuals and the greater the temptation for theft of these data. It may not necessarily be theft. Given the way that the Government have been behaving, the data could simply be lost—or, as I have already inferred, hacked into or purchased. If our bank details are lost, sold or something like that, we can change the accounts, but we cannot change much personal information such as DNA and identity. Lost or stolen, it could be in unwanted hands for ever and used against the freedom of individuals for criminal or other reasons.
	I go around many secondary schools, and the sixth-formers remind me that the situation smacks of "Brave New World", "Nineteen Eighty-Four" and the cult TV series "The Prisoner". As an aside, I thought that the new Government Department, the Ministry of Justice, had a George Orwell ring about it. A few constituents who have had a measure of support for these data collection measures have told me, "But I have nothing to hide." They are reminded that that saying is derived from Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" as cameras were being installed in people's accommodation, and that as this Government continue to collect more and more personal data, we may well soon be in the position of actually having nothing left to hide.

Shahid Malik: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on initiating this timely debate. I suspect that he does not recall that the last time we spoke was probably in about 1994 or '95. I believe that he was Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment, and I was part of a delegation from Sheffield. We got what we wanted, but I never got a chance to thank him, so I do so this evening.
	I have listened with great interest to the points that you have made this evening. I shall attempt to address them all, hopefully to your full satisfaction, although I suspect that that might not quite be the case.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Can we just get things right? It is the hon. Member who has been raising these things, not I. The Minister used the term "you", so I correct him before we get any deeper into it.

Shahid Malik: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I wish to comment first on the hon. Gentleman's private Member's Bill. I thank him for his continued support for the protection of children, particularly on the internet, and for his valued contribution to that ongoing debate.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points relating to his constituents. He said that benefit forms were too long and, in the words of his constituent, too nosey as well. He talked about data collection and about his secondary hobby, dentistry. By virtue of the Data Protection Act 1998, benefit forms are meant to contain only information that is appropriate and essential, and of course it is protected information. People will always come to different judgments, and clearly his constituents—sadly, in some ways—have come to the one that he described.
	In this debate, we are considering the profound question of the role of the state in protecting civil liberties and freedoms in Mole Valley and much more widely. I am clear that the role of Government is to safeguard our citizens from those who would seek to do us harm, while ensuring that our rights to privacy and freedom are protected. The Government have put in place a strong legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals. The Human Rights Act 1998 enshrines privacy in law as a qualified right that needs to be balanced against collective interests such as national security and the prevention of crime.
	We live in a fast-changing world. Developments in technology are especially rapid, providing greater opportunities and benefits to us as individuals. Those who would do us harm can also take advantage of those developments, which creates an ever-increasing challenge as we seek to safeguard and protect the public, a challenge to which the Government and their enforcement agencies are duty-bound to respond.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke at some length about DNA. I am sure he agrees that DNA techniques have helped to bring thousands of serious offenders to justice. They helped police solve 1,000 rapes and murders in 2006-07, and more than 18 million employment checks stopped more than 80,000 unsuitable people working with children and vulnerable adults in the past four years. The list goes on.
	The four key principles that underpin the Government's approach to privacy and security are: proportionality, safeguarding, transparency and, of course, common sense. Recent announcements demonstrate the Government's commitment to those principles. To focus on DNA, today marks the commencement of the public consultation exercise on the retention, use and governance of DNA and fingerprints. In the case of S and Marper, the European Court found a violation under article 8 on the "blanket and indiscriminate" retention policy for DNA and fingerprints. Of course we accept the Court's judgment but also its recognition of the importance of using DNA and fingerprints to tackle and prevent crime, including terrorism, and ensure public protection.
	Public protection is a key consideration in what we do.

Paul Beresford: I have accepted the importance of criminals having their data on a national database that is accessible to the police and so on, for the reasons that the Under-Secretary set out. However, I am worried about the innocent. I deliberately gave him the second example of the young lady, who was clearly innocent but would still have her files on the system for seven years under the Government's new proposals.

Shahid Malik: The hon. Gentleman talked about one of his constituents who was wrongly arrested. Our proposals set out possible grounds for removing data—for example, in cases of mistaken identity. Criteria will be set out in regulations that we will develop as the consultation rolls out.
	Let me give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. Kensley Larrier was arrested in May 2002 for the possession of an offensive weapon. His DNA was taken at the time and loaded on to the DNA database in June 2002. The proceedings were discontinued in October 2002, but his DNA was retained under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. In July 2004, a rape was committed in the north of England and DNA from the investigation was speculatively searched against the national database and matched with the acquittal sample. Larrier was arrested and charged with the offence in November 2004. He was convicted in June 2005, jailed for five years and entered on the sex offenders register for life. That is one example of what can happen if DNA data are retained.

Paul Beresford: I understand that point. We accept it because the dates fall within the suggested three years. However, I am worried about people who are clearly innocent and cases in which a mistake has clearly been made. Surrey police keep the data.

Shahid Malik: We believe that the issue is sufficiently important to warrant a consultation. Our proposals are based on the best available evidence and research. The consultation paper sets out the research on the risk of future offending or reoffending. A six-year period is at the lower end of the risk of offending scale, but we believe it is a proportionate response to the European Court judgment in the light of the available research. We are very keen to adopt a retention period based on evidence, and we have gone some way to try to achieve that. We certainly think that this is an important enough issue to have a conversation with those who are not privileged enough to be in this place, and we are embarking on that at this moment in time.
	The proposals in the consultation focus on achieving a proportionate balance between allowing the police to detect, investigate and deal with offenders effectively and ensuring that appropriate safeguards and protections are available to the individual, and to achieve that balance, changes are proposed in five key areas. The first proposal is that all samples be destroyed. The second is that profiles for persons arrested but not convicted may only be retained for a maximum period of six years or 12 years in the case of serious, violent or sexual offences. The third is that the DNA of a young person arrested and convicted of a minor offence be removed from the database when they reach 18 years of age, and for those arrested and not convicted of any further offences the profiles will be deleted after six years or on the person's 18th birthday.

Paul Beresford: I clearly made a mistake. I said that the young lady's information would be collected and kept for seven years, but in fact because she was accused, wrongly, of a violent action against other individuals—I wonder whether I should wait for the Minister to listen—if we had not won the fight with the police her information could well have been stored for 12 years, as has been suggested, rather than seven. I was wrong.

Shahid Malik: As I have said, we are consulting on these proposals. The fourth proposal is that the criteria for destruction of profiles before expiry of the six-year or 12-year period should be set out in the regulations. That would enable people to know whether they would qualify to make such an application. It is also proposed that an independent advisory panel be established to monitor implementation of the regulations. Lastly, as we need to make sure that those who should be on the database are on it, proposals extending police powers to take samples and fingerprints following conviction are included.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned CCTV. I know from my surgeries and the campaigns in my constituency that queues of people—almost literally—say to me that we should have more CCTV, not less. I understand the concerns that people have about CCTV, but it is a powerful crime-fighting tool. Police operational experience and various research studies show that it deters and detects crime, and helps to secure convictions. It can also reduce the fear of crime, and the Government remain very much committed to the use of CCTV in helping to make communities feel safer.
	We have taken the European Court's judgment on DNA as the focus for our approach. We have recognised that there is scope to go beyond its judgment and establish a framework based on public protection and individual safeguards. We have provided a significant opportunity for public debate on this key area, and we will use the findings from the consultation to develop draft regulations for Parliament to consider and approve before the end of this calendar year.
	The hon. Gentleman also talked about identity cards. In the context of yesterday's announcement on those, the national identity service will provide a single, simple and secure way for individuals to prove their identity and to protect their personal details. The service includes the national identity register, biometric passports and ID cards. Information held on that register will be similar to that stored on the existing passport database. It will include biographical data, biometric data and administrative data relating to the secure issue and use of the card. The register will not hold sensitive personal data such as medical history or criminal records; nor will it hold tax, benefit or pension information. The individual will have the right to see all the information held about them on the national identity register, including who has accessed it, once their identity is confirmed, in line with the subject access rights.
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Steve McCabe.)

Shahid Malik: In addition, the appointment of a newly created national identity scheme commissioner—the first such commissioner ever created solely to oversee a single programme—will provide independent oversight.

Paul Beresford: I thank the Minister for his indulgence. I put this question to his colleagues some time back, but would he not accept that the more data are collected and the broader they are, especially in these days of identity theft, the bigger the target becomes for those who wish to purchase the information—illegally, obviously—or break in?

Shahid Malik: We will never develop a system that is 100 per cent. foolproof. There will always be individuals who are willing to be corrupted and hackers who engage in their favoured activity. However, we believe that the benefits that accrue from our work by far outweigh any of the costs.
	Recent research shows that 71 per cent. of those interviewed trusted the Identity and Passport Service to look after their personal information, which is far more than expressed trust in banks, insurance companies, supermarkets and internet retailers. Given that the ID cards regime will use the same infrastructure as the Passport Service, I hope that that, too, will reassure the hon. Gentleman to an extent—although I suspect only to an extent.
	On 27 April, we published a public consultation on communications data—to be clear, that refers to the who, when and where of a communication and not the content. I fear that there is a lot of confusion about that. It is not the content of the text that matters, but who sent it, to whom, when, where and so on. Our approach in this area is proportionate. That is why the consultation sets out clearly the fact that the Government have no plans for a centralised database for storing all communications data or for storing content.
	Important safeguards are in place to protect individuals' right to privacy. Access by public authorities to any of the data currently retained by communications companies for business purposes is tightly regulated and is also overseen by the interception of communications commissioner. Used in the right way, communications data can play a critical role in keeping us all safe. Doing so makes common sense. Doing nothing in the face of technological change is not an option. We will listen to and engage with the public to ensure that we strike the right balance, as ever, for the continued protection of our country and its citizens.
	The hon. Gentleman also talked about ContactPoint. Concerns have been expressed—not just in the House, but elsewhere—about ContactPoint, which is a vital safeguard for children. ContactPoint will provide a quick way for practitioners to find out who else is working with the same child. It will help to ensure that practitioners can share information quickly, enabling them to spend time providing support for the children who need it and helping to prevent things from getting worse. We take our responsibilities under the Data Protection Act 1998, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights, and all other legal obligations relevant to ContactPoint, very seriously indeed.

Paul Beresford: I understand the basis for including children who need support. However, many of the children in my area, if not 80 to 90 per cent. of them, are not at risk, nor are they on registers and so on, yet their names, details and so forth will be on the system. That is what is upsetting parents.

Shahid Malik: I empathise with the hon. Gentleman's perspective, but only to a degree. The contrary will be the case for the vast majority of parents, who will gain reassurance.
	Security is paramount for ContactPoint, and a number of robust security measures are in place. Access is restricted to those who need it as part of their work, and it is limited to what is needed for each role. ContactPoint holds only minimal data; it does not hold case information. The Children Act 2004 Information Database (England) Regulations 2007 define and strictly limit the information that can be held on ContactPoint. It does not, and will not, contain any financial information, or any case information such as case notes, assessments, medical records, exam results, comments or subjective observations. We have sought, and will seek, to balance children's and families' rights to the services to which they are entitled with their individual right to privacy.
	Concerns have been expressed about patient information held within the NHS care records service. In modern health care, it is vital that the information that clinicians need when they are treating patients is available at the right time and in the right place across the NHS. This will save lives and improve care. Access to records held in the new NHS database will only be permitted to organisations involved in delivering care to NHS patients. Other parts of Government or public agencies—the police, for example—neither have nor will have direct access to any NHS data, or to the NHS care records database. The release of identifiable patient information from NHS care records will be possible only in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, common law confidentiality requirements, and any other legal requirements. These limit the release of information without consent to circumstances in which the public interest that would be served by the release of information outweighs an individual's right to confidentiality, or in which legislation or the courts require or permit the release.
	The hon. Gentleman kindly shared with the House an Australian experience in which breaches had occurred. I go back to the point that I made earlier—namely, that no system is 100 per cent. foolproof. Ultimately, however, we believe that the benefits that accrue will far outweigh any costs and risks involved. The Government will always take a principled and proportionate view of what needs to be done to protect the public and to respect individual privacy. We do not have a surveillance society. The constituents of Mole Valley can sleep easy this evening.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.